Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/Assessment
Taskforces and child projects:
WikiProject Europe has a joint peer review programme with WikiProject European Union. Members of both projects can propose and review each other's articles.
Current requests[edit]
- European Court of Auditors - J Logan t: 15:00, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
- Opt-outs in the European Union —Nightstallion 16:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- Geography of Bosnia and Herzegovina, I give it a GA quality rating and a top priority label - U5K0 t: 19:30, 29 September 2007 (ECT)
- Flag of Europe - J Logan t: 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- European integration a (B category) to do list on the talk page would be grately appreciated. --U5K0 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
- Future Launchers Preparatory Programme (FLPP), Request for Complete review. Rik ISS-fan (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
- Ariane 6 requesting quality reassessment SkywalkerPL (talk) 10:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Les Espaces d'Abraxas - Expanded the content by an extra 2000 words. Lead still needs some work, also trying to find photos I can use, as photos of the building are not in the Creative Commons due to French law. Greenroof1234 (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Peer review guide[edit]
The European Peer review process exposes articles to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors, and is intended for high-quality articles that have already undergone extensive work, often as a way of preparing a featured article candidate. It is not academic peer review by a group of experts in a particular subject, and articles that undergo this process should not be assumed to have greater authority than any other. For feedback on articles that are less developed, use the article's talk page or requests for feedback.
For general editing advice, see Wikipedia style guidelines, Wikipedia how-to, "How to write a great article", and "The perfect article". Articles that need extensive basic editing should be directed to Pages needing attention, Requests for expansion or Cleanup, and content or neutrality disputes should be listed at Requests for comment.
Requesting a review[edit]
Anyone can request peer review. The best way to get lots of reviews is to reply promptly and appreciatively on this page to any comments. If you post a request, please do not discourage reviewers by ignoring their efforts.
While not required it is strongly encouraged that users submitting new peer review requests choose an article from those already listed to peer review. Preference should be given to those articles which have been listed the longest with little or no response (not including automated peer reviews).
To add a nomination simply place {{E-peer}} at the top of the article's talk page, creating a peer review notice to notify other editors of the review. Then create a section on the talk page entitled "Peer Review" and note the kind of comments/contributions you want, and/or the sections of the article you think need reviewing. Sign with four tildes (~~~~). Finally, edit current requests at the top of this page, and at the top of that section write: * ARTICLE NAME ~~~~
Responding to a request[edit]
- Review one of the articles below. If you think something is wrong—e.g., article length, the lead section, poor grammar/spelling, factual errors—post a comment in the article's section on this page. If you create a subsection within a review for your comments, please do not link your username: it is easily confused with an article title.
- Feel free to correct the article yourself. Please consider noting your edits here and on the talk page to keep others informed about the article's progress.
Feel free to remove the request when it has become a featured article candidate, been inactive for a month or if it is an inappropriate or abandoned listing (where the nominator has not replied to comments).
Instructions[edit]
Class[edit]
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Europe}} project banner on its talk page:
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 Europe articles) |  FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Europe articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Europe articles) |  GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Europe articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Europe articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Europe articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Europe articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Europe articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Europe articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
Importance[edit]
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Europe}} project banner on its talk page:
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 Europe articles) | Top | |
| High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Europe articles) | High | |
| Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Europe articles) | Mid | |
| Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Europe articles) | Low | |
| NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Europe articles) | NA | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Europe articles) | ??? |
Rankings[edit]
An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Europe}} and {{WikiProject European Union}} project banners on its talk page. You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below. See the banners pages for details of their syntax's.
Quality scale[edit]
Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.
| 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.[under discussion] | 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. | 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 |
article is easy to comprehande
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 hagiography. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.
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. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the prespective of someone from that region.
| Importance | Criteria | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Top | Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for the study of the European Union, or is particularly notable for their contributions in this area to people other than students of the European Union. They define and determine the subject of the European Union WikiProject. | European Union and the sub-articles linked from the main article |
| High | Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of the European Union, but not necessarily outside it. | Institutions of the European Union or Western European Union. |
| Mid | Subject contributes to the total subject of the European Union WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous. | Democratic deficit in the European Union or Iraq – European Union relations |
| Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of the European Union, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. | Nick Griffin or 1st EU-Brazil summit |