Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lego/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The assessment department of WikiProject Lego focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Lego articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Lego}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Lego articles by quality and Category:Lego articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. (Index · Statistics · Log)

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
See also the general assessment FAQ
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Lego}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Lego}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the project talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Lego WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
6. 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.
7. What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can ask any member of the project to rate the article again. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
8. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!

Instructions

[edit]

Quality assessment

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Lego}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class Lego articles category)  FA
FL (for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class Lego articles category)  FL
A (for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class Lego articles category)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class Lego articles category)  GA
B (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class Lego articles category) B
C (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class Lego articles category) C
Start (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class Lego articles category) Start
Stub (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class Lego articles category) Stub
List (for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class Lego articles category) List
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class Lego pages category) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed Lego articles category) ???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

Category (for categories; adds them to the Category-Class Lego pages category) Category
Draft (for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class Lego pages category) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds them to the File-Class Lego pages category) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds them to the Portal-Class Lego pages category) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class Lego pages category) Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class Lego pages category) Template

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds them to the Disambig-Class Lego pages category) Disambig
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds them to the Redirect-Class Lego pages category) Redirect

Quality scale

[edit]

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

These criteria apply to general-content articles. The manual of style provides additional sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.

Each Lego-related article has its assessment included within the {{WikiProject Lego}} template, such as {{WikiProject Lego|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Lego articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

Importance assessment

[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Lego}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Lego|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Lego articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Lego articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Lego articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Lego articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Lego articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Lego articles)  ??? 

Importance scale

[edit]

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Lego.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Log

[edit]

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; due to its size (ca 100 kB), it cannot be transcluded directly.

  1. ^ For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. However, where quite a number of pictures exist, for instance, the moon landing, FPC attempts to select the best of the ones produced.
  2. ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
  3. ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
  4. ^ Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.