Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject UK Railways/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject UK Railways. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's UK Railways articles. The article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. Feel free to help out by either helping with assessments or improving articles with a low quality rating.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{TrainsWikiProject|UK=yes}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:UK Railways articles by quality, which you can use to find articles which need work, as well as the table on the right of this page.

UK Railways articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 4 18 21 44
FL 4 2 6
A 1 1
GA 1 12 40 89 1 143
B 9 55 193 291 4 552
C 7 66 446 1,011 17 1,547
Start 2 74 841 6,081 25 7,023
Stub 2 63 5,612 9 5,686
List 6 89 152 8 9 264
Category 1,887 1,887
Disambig 68 68
File 65 65
Redirect 3 22 175 526 726
Template 950 950
NA 2 18 752 772
Other 1 1
Assessed 20 222 1,718 13,453 4,257 65 19,735
Unassessed 2 2
Total 20 222 1,718 13,453 4,257 67 19,737
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 77,362 Ω = 5.16

Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the WikiProject UK Railways is free to add or change the rating of an article.
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on this article's talk page.

Instructions

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{TrainsWikiProject}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class UK Railways articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class UK Railways articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class UK Railways articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class UK Railways articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class UK Railways articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class UK Railways articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class UK Railways articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class UK Railways articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class UK Railways articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class UK Railways pages) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class UK Railways pages) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class UK Railways pages) Draft
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class UK Railways pages) Portal
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class UK Railways pages) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class UK Railways pages) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class UK Railways pages) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed UK Railways articles) ???

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.

Quality scale

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 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
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 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

Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{TrainsWikiProject|UK=yes}} project banner on its talk page:

{{TrainsWikiProject|UK=yes| ... | UK-importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

All articles that lack an importance rating are categorized in Category:Unknown-importance UK Railways articles.

Importance scale

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics of rail transportation in the United Kingdom. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on {{Train topics}} A reader who is not involved in the UK's rail transport will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialised pages. Stephenson's Rocket
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding the history or technology of rail transportation in the United Kingdom. Most readers will at least be familiar with the topic being discussed. These articles describe the basics beyond the core topics about, such as, how trains work, the runnings of the railways and the more significant historical events in the UK's rail transportation history. Articles about the most basic topics in the UK's rail transportation like rolling stock types, the largest railway companies and the most historically and culturally significant topics in the UK are included in this level. Some technical terms can be used within articles in this range, but where they are used, they should be explained or at least link to articles that discuss the terms in more detail. Channel Tunnel Rail Link
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history or technology of rail transport in the UK. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand rail transport, such as main stations in secondary travel markets, former secondary railways and more specialised types of equipment. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most railway company executives will be rated in this level. London Midland
Low The article is not required knowledge to broadly understand the technology or history of rail transportation in the UK. Few readers outside the UK's rail transport industry or that are not within the local area of the article's topic may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of the UK's rail transportation, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most metro and local railway stations, short line railway companies and limited or one-off productions of equipment or facilities that otherwise had no significant impact on the rail industry. Jordanhill railway station

Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

  • SimSig Please consider as part of UK railways. It's a simulation of UK signalling so I think it's relevant... whether anybody else does I don't know! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.57.240.49 (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2009
  • I've reassessed it as B-class/Mid, but it really needs a route diagram. Once you have a route diagram, you might like to consider WP:GAN. I've only given it a very cursory read; I've not checked grammar in depth, but I think it could make GA.Pyrotec (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Intercity 125. Unsigned comments by User:81.111.115.63, 16:07 18 May 2009. I beleive that it is, curretly, correctly assessed as a C-class mid/high importance article. It has the makings of a B-class article, but it currently lacks WP:verify in many of the sections. There is (also) a {flag} to that effect at the top of the article.Pyrotec (talk) 15:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessed as C-class. It's not far off being a B-class: the text is fine; however using wikipedia as a verifiable reference is not allowed (its used twice) and you've got a fair amount of WP:Overlinking, i.e. not every occurence of Monmouth Troy railway station, for instance but there are quite a few others, needs wikilinking. Better references and less wikilinking would likely give you B-class. Pyrotec (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now B-class, removed unsutiable citations and lots of overlinking. WVRMAD•Talk •Guestbook 17:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, I agree with you on St. Neots - its definitely not a B-class; and not yet a C-class, I agree with Start-class. Hitchin is just about a C-class, so I've downgraded it from B to C-class. Huntingdon is almost unreferenced, so I've downgraded it from B-class to Start; similarly, Biggleswade & Arlesey are not C-class, let alone B-class, so I've moved down them to Start-class. I've also changed the WP Bedford assessments, it appears to be a case of self-assessment by one of the main contributors. Pyrotec (talk) 16:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what happened here - I was sure there was only five station articles, but now there are six . I've also reassessed Sandy railway station as Start-class. On checking, it seems that the editor concerned only started contributing to wikpedia on 8 May 2010; and while the additional content added to all the articles has improved those articles - none are anywhere near B-class (or C-class in five out of six cases). Pyrotec (talk) 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All have been reassessed as C-Class. I wouldn't give them B-Class, due to an over-reliance on the 'Tallyllyn Handbook' for citations, using it at least 4-5 times in each article.

Assessment index

Index · Statistics · Log


Assessment log

December 21, 2024

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

December 20, 2024

Reassessed

December 19, 2024

Reassessed

December 18, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

December 17, 2024

Reassessed

December 15, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_UK_Railways/Assessment&oldid=1141870895"