Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian history/Chach Nama task force/Coordination

Main page Talk Articles in Need Coordination Good sources

As this task force is relatively small and its membership fairly ambiguous, there need be no formal coordination. However, basic guidelines, advice, and problem-solving techniques will be uploaded to this page as the task force develops.

Assessment

Contributors are strongly encouraged to assess pages listed at Articles in Need and any pages pertaining to 7th-century Sindhi history. It is suggested that the following criteria be used; WikiProject Indian history does not appear to have assessment criteria in place, nor is it a particularly active project. Please feel free to update the WikiProject Indian history tag on article talk pages as you see fit.

The following criteria are provisional, and will be updated in the coming weeks.

A-class

A1: Prose. The article is free of grammar, style, or other prose errors.

• It adheres to one standardization of English, whether British, American, or another variety.
• It complies with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, and does not require significant or noticeable copyediting.
• It is properly structured into a lead section, per the relevant policy, and one or more body sections.

A2: Sourcing and citations. The article is verifiable and references reliable sources.

• It uses an appropriate citation style throughout, and is consistent with the application of said style.
• All citations are properly formatted; proper templates and documentation are included in relevant sections following the body of the article.
• Most to all sentences are referenced.
• Sources are reliable and objective, third-party analyses of the article's subject or relating, influencing factors.
• The article is not overly reliant on primary source material, particularly the Chach Nama

A3: Copyright and media usage. No content included within the article violates copyright laws or Wikipedia policies governing said content's use.

• Featured Article criterion 3 applies.

A4: The article has attained B-class and has been listed as a good article. A5: The article has received two comprehensive reviews.

B-class

B1: Prose. The article uses clear, articulate English prose throughout.

• Few grammar, style, or other prose errors can be found.
• Only a small or minor copyedit is needed.
• The article has a lead section, per the relevant policy, and at least one body section.

B2: Sourcing and citations. The article is verifiable.

• Reliable sources verify the article's content.
• Each paragraph includes a reference to a reliable source.
• The Chach Nama may be used as a reliable source, but original synthesis, of course, is not permissible.
• A consistent citation style is used throughout.
• A proper "References" section and, preferably, a "Sources" section follow the body of the article.

C-class

C1: Prose. The article uses prose of a reasonable or average quality.

• Some grammar, style, or other prose errors can be found.
• A small to moderate copyedit is needed.
• The article has a lead section; it may or may not have supporting body sections.

C2: Sourcing and citations. The article is largely verifiable and contains some reliable sources.

• Not all sources need be reliable.
• The article may rely heavily on the Chach Nama or other primary sources.
• Citation templates are used throughout; they need not be consistent.
• There is a citation section following the article's content.

...or... C3: Fails B-class referencing criteria. C4: Is an excellently-written, well-sourced but short article.

Start-class

S1: Prose. The article uses prose of a poor quality.

• Grammar, style, or other prose errors would be apparent to a casual reader.
• A significant copyedit is needed.

S2: Sourcing and citations. The article has difficulty with Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

• Not all sources are reliable.
• There are not sufficient sources.
• The article relies predominantly on the Chach Nama or other primary sources.

...or... S3: Fails all C-class criteria, but is of moderate length or else long.

Stub guidelines

Given the nature of many subjects with which task force participants will work, stubs are an inevitability. Please know that stubs are not evil; at the same time, make sure that they are of a reasonable length, preferably at least a paragraph. Stubs also must be reliably-sourced, and content must be verifiable. It is acceptable to base a stub's content primarily on the Chach Nama, but content, of course, must be properly attributed.