Wikipedia:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the main tasks of the WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area is to assess the quality of Wikipedia's SFBA articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to help in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. They also play a role in the WP:1.0 program, which the WikiProject uses to help automate some of the assessing process.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the Wikipedia:WikiProject California/San Francisco Bay Area task force project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:San Francisco Bay Area articles by quality. WP:1.0 then produces a statistics page, and a log of articles assessed, reassessed, and renamed. (a log showing older assessments exists here).

How to assess[edit]

An article's assessment is generated on its talkpage from the class parameter in {{WikiProject California}}, the WikiProject's banner. To add the banner, add the following to its talkpage:

{{WikiProject California|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=}}, thus the exact text being added is "{{WikiProject California|class= |importance= |sfba=yes|sfba-importance= }}"

To add an assessment, simply fill in the class parameter with the appropriate letters. The following values may be used:

San Francisco Bay Area articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 9 14 29 52
FL 1 2 15 11 29
FM 36 36
A 1 1
GA 2 11 64 113 13 203
B 25 111 209 278 99 722
C 22 120 417 923 2 401 1,885
Start 13 149 910 3,702 4 915 5,693
Stub 14 181 3,549 3 450 4,197
List 1 57 109 22 189
Category 1,812 1,812
Disambig 2 7 9
File 66 66
Portal 1,138 1,138
Project 20 20
Redirect 1 7 9 198 343 558
Template 1 3 228 232
Other 5 5
Assessed 64 424 1,877 8,918 3,664 1,900 16,847
Unassessed 52 52
Total 64 424 1,877 8,918 3,664 1,952 16,899
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 63,762 Ω = 5.00

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area uses the same criteria for grading articles as set out by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you are not sure what class an article falls under, leave a note on the WikiProject's talkpage, and someone will help you out.

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] San Francisco
(as of 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:
  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 tallest buildings in San Francisco
(as of 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. NO EXAMPLES, NOT IN USE
 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. Bay Area Rapid Transit
(as of 2018)
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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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. 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake
(as of 2018)
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. 1906 San Francisco earthquake
(as of 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:
  • 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. Port of Oakland
(as of 2018)
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. Bolinas Lagoon
(as of 2018)
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 University of California, Berkeley faculty

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 also that in cases where an article is covered by other WikiProjects in addition to than this one, the importance rating for that article may be different for this project than it is for the other projects. Importance is only part of several factors used to determine inclusion in release versions of Wikipedia content, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot for more information on how articles are scored for inclusion.

The criteria and examples given for the San Francisco Bay Area task force importance scale are works in progress. Please make modifications or add examples as needed, or discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area

  • ??? (adds pages to Category:Unknown-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles); this is automatically assigned to any article whose importance is not graded. Ideally, this category should always be empty. Most Wikiprojects have a large number in this category. Our is currently empty! lets keep it that way!
Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for the SFBA, is widely famous woldwide and/or generally notable to people other than students of SFBA. This includes counties; the largest cities; main subject articles (SFBA history, geography, climate, economy, etc.); major universities; iconic structures and major geographic features known outside the area; and critical or defining events and persons. Oakland, San Francisco Bay, Golden Gate Bridge, Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Jose, California, 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Berkeley, California, Apple Computer
High Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the SFBA, and known and/or notable to specialized audiences outside it. This includes county seats (not already in the Top list); cities of particular importance or populations above 80,000 to 100,000; most remaining accredited four-year colleges; major parks and other significant protected areas; the most prominent local companies and institutions; natural and geographic features of local significance; iconic buildings; regional governments; the most significant historical, cultural, musical or artistic figures and movements Año Nuevo State Reserve, Leland Stanford, Jack London, Grateful Dead, Beat Generation
Mid Subject contributes meaningfully to the SFBA. Subject may not necessarily be famous. This includes the remaining cities and towns; recognized neighborhoods of San Francisco; special districts; community colleges; school districts; subject articles of the form "Education in Foo;" significant Census Designated Places; notable aspects of natural history; major media; significant or large companies and organizations; notable aspects of cultural history, such as SFBA-based art movements; most biographies of important SFBA historical, cultural, and scientific figures, including the most notable SFBA bands Atherton, California, Bay Area Figurative Movement, De Anza College, Alice Eastwood, Dorothea Lange, Haight-Ashbury, San Francisco, California,
Low Subject is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia but primarily of specialized or local interest, not particularly well known or significant, or included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. This includes most high schools; most buildings; most neighborhoods outside of San Francisco; lesser-known natural areas, such as county open spaces; minor geographic features and aspects of natural history (such as endemic plant and animal species); most companies, organizations, and structures; biographies of less well-known SFBA people, including most local bands, and all the biographies of people or bands originally from the SFBA that are not well connected to it. 16th Street Mission (BART station), Dogtown (Oakland, California), JP MorganChase Building, Rigo 23, San Francisco garter snake
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_California/San_Francisco_Bay_Area_task_force/Assessment&oldid=1037140136"