Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/Assessment
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Article assessment is the process by which shark related articles are sorted into different qualities. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles.
Assessment scale
[edit]The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 FA |
The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
|
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
|
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
 A |
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). |
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) |
 GA |
The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria
A good article is:
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019) |
| B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
|
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. | A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
| C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
|
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
| Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
|
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. | Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
| List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. | Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | List of literary movements |
These criteria apply to general-content articles. Shark articles have additional criteria/guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for an article of each class; see the talk page for discussion of these.
Each shark related article has its assessment included inside the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk}} template, such as {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sharks/SharksTalk|class=B}}. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's discussion pagefor more information.
Specific requirements
[edit]An article about a species has the following requirements:
- A taxobox - Following the guidelines set out by the Tree of Life WikiProject
- A picture in the taxobox - Clearly identifiable image of the species
- Introduction - A short summary-like paragraph
- Naming - Why the species has that name, names in other languages, etc.
- Distribution - Information about where they are found - oceanic, reef, etc.
- Distribution map - Follow the guidelines on the template shark article to put a map at the bottom of the taxobox
- Anatomy - Body shape, respiration, life histories, etc.
- Diet - What they eat
- Behaviour - description of the behaviour exhibited by the species
- Reproduction - how the species mates and reproduces
- References - A references section at the end, preferably with inline sourcing throughout the article
Assessment guidelines
[edit]The following are specific assessment guidelines specifically for shark related articles.
- Stub class- No structure, only brief sentence or two - Use {{Stub-Class}}
- Start class- Some structure, brief paragraph - Use {{Start-Class}}
- B class- Decent structure, at least one paragraph for most required headers, inline sourcing, includes distribution map and at least one image - Use {{B-Class}}
- GA class- All required headers with good amount of text, a few relevant images. Should have passed GA - Use {{GA-Class}}
- A class- Everything is fully mentioned, sub-sections for larger headers, cite web formatting, should be nearly ready for FAC - Use {{A-Class}}
- FA class- Passed FAC - Use {{FA-Class}}
Importance
[edit]| Top | Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia |
| High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge |
| Mid | Subject fills in more minor details |
| Low | Subject is mainly of specialist interest. |
Assessment process
[edit]To create a new assessment discussion here, add the article to be assessed in a level three (e.g. ===[[Article name]]===) sub-section of the Article assessments section below. Give the article's exact name in the title with a wikilink. Finally, add the "assessed=yes" parameter to the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk}} template near the top of the article's talk page.
After the header add your comments in a table like this:
{|
| CLASS || IMPORTANCE ||REMARKS - ~~~~
|}
Substituting CLASS for what you think the class is, IMPORTANCE for what you think the importance is and REMARKS for any comments you have on the article and then sign off with four tildes (~~~~) after the REMARKS.
When filling in the CLASS use the class templates to colour the table cell:
- {{Stub-Class}}
- {{Start-Class}}
- {{B-Class}}
- {{GA-Class}}
- {{A-Class}}
- {{FA-Class}}
And for IMPORTANCE use the importance templates:
- {{Top-importance}}
- {{High-importance}}
- {{Mid-importance}}
- {{Low-importance}}
Current practice is that Stub-Start-B assessments are done by individual editors when looking at an article. Before upgrading to A-class the article should be discussed here to make sure everyone agrees. Once the article is A-class you should probably get general peer review on it and then follow the normal process for making the article a FA article. Peer review (PR) and FA candidates (FAC) should be announced here to get more specific comments from the editors.
Article assessments
[edit]Automatically updated list of shark articles and their status.
| Stub | Low | Have only taxobox and references Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B | High | Suggest submit for GA. Comments? Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B | Top | Good inline references, good headers. I think this could be submitted for GA. chris_huh 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Start | Mid | Yomanganitalk 15:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B | High | Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B | High | Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Start | Low | Yomanganitalk 01:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Start | High | Only behaviour and intro section. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Start | High | Good start class, but a bit thin for B class. Stefan 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B | Top | Lacks inline references! Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B | High | Resonable content. Lacks inline references. Stefan 09:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
- Proper inline references have been provided in the new revision of this article. The over-all content of this article has also been considerably improved. LeGenD 03:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
- This article have been submitted for GA class. LeGenD 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
| FA |
High | Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |
| Start | High | Good start class, but a bit thin for B class. Stefan 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) |
| GA |
Top | After collaboration of the week I nominated this for GA. Stefan 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Accepted. Stefan 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) |
| B | High | Submitted for GA 5 Sep. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
|
- COTF finished, what should we do now, reapply for GA or maybe get a peer-review, or just leave it for a bit? chris_huh 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should reapply, think the text is much better now, maybe we need some more references, I will continue to work on that for a while, but I have very little time for wiki for the next week or so! Stefan 09:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I nominated it again, lets see what happens. Stefan 08:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
- COTF finished, what should we do now, reapply for GA or maybe get a peer-review, or just leave it for a bit? chris_huh 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
| B | Top | Submitted for GA 5 Sep. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) |