Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut: WP:COMP/A
Assessment links

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Computing. This project aims to assess articles under the scope of WikiProject Computing and help improving Wikipedia.

Assessment requests[edit]

If you have encountered an article that you believe has been sufficiently improved, please list it here and, if possible, a reviewer will reassess the article and leave comments.

Quality assessment procedures[edit]

Open requests[edit]

Some articles are of interest for both this project and WikiProject Computer Security. While assessing, please update both projects Quality and Importance, if you can.

  1. Tapas (website) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — requested by HenryCrun15 (talk · contribs) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vector processor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) requested by lkcl (talk · contribs) have spent some considerable time updating it, correcting some serious *industry-wide* misassertions (yes, really, not "mistakes by other wikipedia editors", actual misleading misassertions by major processor manufacturers). i'm also recommending that the page be upgraded to "Top" or, at a push, "high", because Vector processing is over 60 years old and is the core fundamental basis of all GPUs on the planet and the majority of supercomputers as well. in talk page. Lkcl (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    holy cow! 477 pages link to this one! Lkcl (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    also having read the critera i would advocate it seems to meet the criteria for a "B" class. i don't think it meets "GA" or "A" criteria. Lkcl (talk) 18:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have some concerns with the direction this article has taken. I have started a discussion at Talk:Vector_processor#Discernable_features. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The Exposé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — requested by Isi96 (talk · contribs): I created the article this August and expanded it significantly since then. It has not been assessed. Quality B. Default importance rating, Low seems like a good place to start, can be adjusted for other projects as necessary. ~Kvng (talk) 14:04, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Disclose.tv (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) — requested by Isi96 (talk · contribs): I created the article a couple of days ago. It has not been assessed. Another B. Thanks! ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluded requests[edit]

The following list is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security/Assessment#Open requests of the related project Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security, that recently has created the Assessment department.

You can join that department, if you like, here.

Please, review them and update the transcluded page accordingly.



Recent assessment changes[edit]

How to assess an article[edit]

Anyone can assess a listed article.

  • Study the quality guidelines. Carefully determine which class applies.
  • Leave comments about your assessment on the talk page.
  • Edit the class= parameter on each relevant project banner.
  • Edit this page to remove the request.
  • Include in the edit summary e.g.:
    Assessed [[ArticleName]], changed from Start-class to C-class

Quality[edit]

WikiProject article 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.[under discussion] Microsoft
OpenBSD
Storm botnet
 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. List of convicted computer criminals
List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems
 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. USB
 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. Alan Turing
Epiphany
MacBook
Python
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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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. Endianness
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. Byte
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. File deletion
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. .dj
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 Java keywords
List of computer viruses

Importance[edit]

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Essential technology, protocols, operating systems, programming languages, important websites, major companies and people, or anything forming the basis of all information Internet, Computer network, Cisco
 High Popular applications, protocols, architectures, or anything that covers a general area of knowledge ASCII, Firewall (computing)
 Mid Core operating system or networking components, or anything that fills in more specific information in certain areas Broadband, Ethernet physical layer
 Low Optional add-ons that are not particularly important, or anything that is an obscure piece of trivia Autonegotiation, Gibson MaGIC, OmniPeek

Quality statistics[edit]

The statistics below are from the last time the assessment tool scanned the WikiProject Computing articles. To see the latest results, have the assessment tool update the data, then reload this page.


Computing articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 4 1 1 8
FL 2 9 11
FM 25 25
GA 5 16 40 103 29 193
B 49 191 328 466 248 1,282
C 62 420 1,234 3,708 1,718 7,142
Start 6 236 1,188 8,861 7,350 17,641
Stub 3 159 5,344 7,721 13,227
List 2 22 116 892 15 399 1,446
Category 1 2 3 5,144 5,150
Disambig 2 16 109 127
File 25 3,235 3,260
Portal 119 3 122
Project 3 1 154 158
Redirect 1 17 75 663 4,691 5,447
Template 3 3 22 1,773 1,801
Draft 2 3 713 718
Assessed 126 910 3,158 20,236 15,862 17,466 57,758
Unassessed 13 4,866 4,879
Total 126 910 3,158 20,249 15,862 22,332 62,637
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 200,484 Ω = 5.07


Project participants interested in assessment[edit]

  1. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phillip A (talk)
  3. SOL Basic 00:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Message From Xenu (talk · contribs)
  6. Josemanimala (talk · contribs)
  7. Some Old Man (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. C21Ktalk 14:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daydreamer302000 (talk · contribs) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. decltype (talk · contribs) 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Andy Chat c 22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Michaelkourlas (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Airplaneman (talk · contribs) 7:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  14. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Kvng (talk · contribs) --Kvng (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Nullw0rm (Talk? - Contribs?) 18:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Dexp (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Pastore Italy (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Pnm (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jamesrules90 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. – ebraminiotalk 17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Enfcer (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ankit Maity (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Ourhistory153 (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC) Cloud_computing[reply]
  26. Bardi1100 (talk)
  27. Diego (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. -- Trevj (talk) 10:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Simon Bramfitt talk
  30. Enrique Villar 13:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (St. Paul's Fall)[reply]
  31. Seba5tien (talk/contribs) 08:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. MBlairMartin (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2016
  33. Jamesp88 (talk | contribs) 17:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. OvalCheese (talk) 00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Lkcl (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  36. ClockworkSoul 17:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  37. –Gluonz talk contribs 21:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment&oldid=1209217541"