Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft Windows/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Microsoft Windows WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Microsoft Windows. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Microsoft Windows}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Microsoft Windows articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents 1 Frequently asked questions 2 Instructions 2.1 Quality scale 2.2 Importance scale 2.3 Requesting an assessment 3 Assessment log 3.1 December 29, 2008 3.2 December 26, 2008 3.3 December 23, 2008 3.4 December 20, 2008 3.5 December 16, 2008 3.6 December 12, 2008 3.7 December 9, 2008 3.8 December 3, 2008 3.9 November 29, 2008 3.10 November 25, 2008 3.11 November 19, 2008 3.12 November 13, 2008 3.13 October 26, 2008 3.14 October 20, 2008 3.15 October 15, 2008 3.16 October 13, 2008 3.17 October 8, 2008 3.18 October 5, 2008 3.19 October 1, 2008 3.20 September 29, 2008 3.21 September 26, 2008 3.22 September 24, 2008 3.23 September 21, 2008 3.24 September 17, 2008 3.25 September 14, 2008 3.26 September 8, 2008 3.27 September 3, 2008 3.28 August 31, 2008 3.29 August 24, 2008 3.30 August 20, 2008 3.31 August 13, 2008 3.32 August 11, 2008 4 Worklist

[edit] 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 Microsoft Windows WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

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 the discussion page for this department.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Microsoft Windows}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Microsoft Windows
|class=
|importance=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Microsoft Windows articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Microsoft Windows articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Microsoft Windows articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Microsoft Windows articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Microsoft Windows articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Microsoft Windows articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Microsoft Windows pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Microsoft Windows articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

WikiProject article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	The article has attained Featured article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended). Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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.	Tourette Syndrome (as of June 2008)
FL {{FL-Class}}	The article has attained Featured list status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. 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.			FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A {{A-Class}}	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. More detailed criteria Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. 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, WikiProject Films).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help.	Durian (as of March 2007)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has attained Good article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the good article criteria: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	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.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. 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. 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. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style and related style guidelines.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007)
C {{C-Class}}	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	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 address cleanup issues.	Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008)
Start {{Start-Class}}	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

[edit] Importance scale

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."

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.

Status	Template	Meaning of Status
Top	{{Top-Class}}	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High	{{High-Class}}	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid	{{Mid-Class}}	This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low	{{Low-Class}}	This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None	None	This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Assessment log

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.

[edit] December 29, 2008

• CD Player (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) renamed to CD Player (Windows)
• Dvdplay (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) renamed to DVD Player (Windows)

[edit] December 26, 2008

• Windows NT 5.1 (talk) Unassessed-Class (Mid-Class) added.
• Dynamic-link library (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] December 23, 2008

• CD Player (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.

[edit] December 20, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] December 16, 2008

• Remote Assistance (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) renamed to Windows Remote Assistance
• Media Foundation (talk) B-Class (Mid-Class) added.
• MIRC (talk) Start-Class (Mid-Class) added.
• Bersirc (talk) Start-Class (Low-Class) added.

[edit] December 12, 2008

• Development of Windows 7 (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] December 9, 2008

• Powertoy Calculator (talk) Unassessed-Class (Low-Class) renamed to Power Calculator
• Windows Internet Name Service reassessed from Stub-Class (Mid-Class) to Start-Class (Mid-Class)
• Removal of Internet Explorer reassessed from B-Class (Low-Class) to Start-Class (Low-Class)

[edit] December 3, 2008

• Windows Internal Database (talk) Stub-Class (Mid-Class) added.

[edit] November 29, 2008

• NTFS junction point (talk) B-Class (Low-Class) added.
• Cabinet (file format) (talk) Start-Class (Mid-Class) added.
• Features removed from Windows 7 (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] November 25, 2008

• Desktop Cleanup Wizard (talk) Stub-Class (Mid-Class) added.
• Windows Media Player 12 (talk) Stub-Class (Mid-Class) added.

[edit] November 19, 2008

• Windows 7 reassessed from Start-Class (Top-Class) to B-Class (Top-Class)
• Graphics Device Interface (talk) B-Class (High-Class) added.
• Workgroup (Computer networking) (talk) Stub-Class (Mid-Class) added.
• As Easy As (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] November 13, 2008

• AppLocale (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) removed.
• DOS/4GW (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) removed.
• Windows Cloud (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) renamed to Windows Azure
• Features new to Windows 7 (talk) Start-Class (High-Class) added.
• Kernel32 (talk) Stub-Class (Mid-Class) added.
• User32 (talk) Stub-Class (Mid-Class) added.
• Microsoft Messaging Passing Interface (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) added.
• Windows Journal reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (Low-Class)

[edit] October 26, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] October 20, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] October 15, 2008

• Windows 7 reassessed from Start-Class (High-Class) to Start-Class (Top-Class)
• DOS/4GW (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] October 13, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] October 8, 2008

• Aurora (image) (talk) Stub-Class (Mid-Class) removed.

[edit] October 5, 2008

• Windows Cloud (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] October 1, 2008

• Windows Ultimate Extras (talk) Start-Class (Mid-Class) added.

[edit] September 29, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 26, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 24, 2008

• Windows NT 5.2 (talk) Unassessed-Class (High-Class) added.

[edit] September 21, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 17, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 14, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 8, 2008

• Features of Windows Vista (talk) B-Class (Mid-Class) renamed to Features new to Windows Vista
• Management features of Windows Vista (talk) B-Class (Mid-Class) renamed to Management features new to Windows Vista
• Technical features of Windows Vista (talk) B-Class (Mid-Class) renamed to Technical features new to Windows Vista
• Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (Mid-Class)

[edit] September 3, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] August 31, 2008

• Security and safety features new of Windows Vista (talk) B-Class (Mid-Class) renamed to Security and safety features new to Windows Vista
• Tray and Play (talk) Stub-Class (Low-Class) removed.

[edit] August 24, 2008

• Mojave experiment (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) renamed to The Mojave Experiment
• Features of Windows Vista reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to B-Class (Mid-Class)

[edit] August 20, 2008

• Criticism of Microsoft Windows (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] August 13, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] August 11, 2008

• List of Microsoft Windows application programming interfaces and frameworks reassessed from Unassessed-Class (Low-Class) to C-Class (Low-Class)
• Known Folders (talk) Unassessed-Class (Low-Class) added.

[edit] Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Contact with WP Microsoft Windows

Article	Import	Date	Assess	Ver	Comments
Microsoft Data Access Components [1]	3 Mid	May 30, 2007	1 FA
Development of Windows Vista [2]	3 Mid	June 10, 2007	2 A
File Allocation Table [3]	3 Mid	December 5, 2007	2 A
Windows Mobile [4]	1 Top	October 24, 2007	3 GA
Bill Gates [5]	2 High	April 19, 2007	3 GA
Internet Explorer [6]	2 High	April 19, 2007	3 GA	0.5
WinFS [7]	3 Mid	July 10, 2007	3 GA
Features new to Windows XP [8]	1 Top	June 4, 2007	4 B
History of Microsoft Windows [9]	1 Top	April 17, 2007	4 B
Internet Explorer 6 [10]	1 Top	February 2, 2008	4 B
Internet Explorer 7 [11]	1 Top	February 23, 2008	4 B
Microsoft Windows [12]	1 Top	February 18, 2008	4 B	0.5
Windows 2000 [13]	1 Top	May 24, 2008	4 B	0.5
Windows 3.1x [14]	1 Top	April 19, 2007	4 B
Windows 7 [15]	1 Top	November 19, 2008	4 B
Windows 98 [16]	1 Top	April 19, 2007	4 B
Windows 9x [17]	1 Top	June 10, 2007	4 B
Windows Me [18]	1 Top	April 19, 2007	4 B
Windows Media Player [19]	1 Top	February 23, 2008	4 B
Windows NT [20]	1 Top	April 19, 2007	4 B
Windows Server 2003 [21]	1 Top	April 19, 2007	4 B
Windows Server 2008 [22]	1 Top	April 19, 2007	4 B
Windows Update [23]	1 Top	April 21, 2008	4 B
Windows Vista [24]	1 Top	July 15, 2008	4 B
Windows XP [25]	1 Top	January 26, 2008	4 B	0.5
.NET Framework [26]	2 High	December 8, 2007	4 B
Active Directory [27]	2 High	December 5, 2007	4 B
Architecture of Windows NT [28]	2 High	October 11, 2007	4 B	0.5
DirectX [29]	2 High	June 2, 2007	4 B
Graphics Device Interface [30]	2 High	November 19, 2008	4 B
Group Policy [31]	2 High	December 27, 2007	4 B
Internet Explorer 5 [32]	2 High	February 23, 2008	4 B
Internet Explorer 8 [33]	2 High	May 13, 2008	4 B
Start menu [34]	2 High	April 21, 2008	4 B
Token (Windows NT architecture) [35]	2 High	July 25, 2007	4 B
Windows Aero [36]	2 High	June 4, 2007	4 B
Windows Explorer [37]	2 High	April 20, 2007	4 B
Windows Media Player 11 [38]	2 High	March 26, 2008	4 B
Windows NT startup process [39]	2 High	April 19, 2007	4 B
Windows Presentation Foundation [40]	2 High	May 24, 2008	4 B
Windows Registry [41]	2 High	June 10, 2007	4 B
Windows Small Business Server [42]	2 High	June 2, 2007	4 B
Windows XP editions [43]	2 High	April 15, 2008	4 B
ASP.NET [44]	3 Mid	April 21, 2008	4 B
Access token [45]	3 Mid	December 13, 2007	4 B
At (Windows) [46]	3 Mid	October 28, 2007	4 B
Background Intelligent Transfer Service [47]	3 Mid	May 4, 2008	4 B
CHKDSK [48]	3 Mid	October 28, 2007	4 B
Calculator (Windows) [49]	3 Mid	May 28, 2007	4 B
ClearType [50]	3 Mid	December 13, 2007	4 B
Commit charge [51]	3 Mid	December 27, 2007	4 B
Component Object Model [52]	3 Mid	June 10, 2007	4 B
Criticism of Internet Explorer [53]	3 Mid	June 2, 2007	4 B
Criticism of Windows Vista [54]	3 Mid	April 19, 2007	4 B
Criticism of Windows XP [55]	3 Mid	June 4, 2007	4 B
Development of Windows XP [56]	3 Mid	June 4, 2007	4 B
Direct3D [57]	3 Mid	April 24, 2007	4 B
DirectShow [58]	3 Mid	December 8, 2007	4 B
DirectSound [59]	3 Mid	December 8, 2007	4 B
DoubleSpace [60]	3