Wikipedia:WikiProject Soft Drinks/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Soft Drinks WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about soft drinks. 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 {{WPSD}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Soft drinks articles by quality and Category:Soft drinks articles by importance, 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 Importance assessment 2.4 Requesting an assessment 3 Assessment log 3.1 January 2, 2009 3.2 December 30, 2008 3.3 December 26, 2008 3.4 December 22, 2008 3.5 December 21, 2008 3.6 December 18, 2008 3.7 December 14, 2008 3.8 December 10, 2008 3.9 December 4, 2008 3.10 November 30, 2008 3.11 November 26, 2008 3.12 November 23, 2008 3.13 November 13, 2008 3.14 October 27, 2008 3.15 October 22, 2008 3.16 October 16, 2008 3.17 October 13, 2008 3.18 October 9, 2008 3.19 October 6, 2008 3.20 October 2, 2008 3.21 September 29, 2008 3.22 September 26, 2008 3.23 September 24, 2008 3.24 September 17, 2008 3.25 September 14, 2008 3.26 September 9, 2008 3.27 September 4, 2008 3.28 September 1, 2008 3.29 August 26, 2008 3.30 August 21, 2008 3.31 August 14, 2008 3.32 August 12, 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 Soft Drinks 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 {{WPSD}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Soft drinks
|class=
|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 Soft drinks articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Soft drinks articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Soft drinks articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Soft drinks articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Soft drinks articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Soft drinks articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Soft drinks pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed-Class Soft drinks 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" but which are of interest primarily to students of soft drinks.

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] Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WPSD}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Soft drinks| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

Top

High

Mid

Low

???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - The article is about one of the core topics of soft drinks as listed in {{Soft drinks topics}}. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Soft drinks articles
• High - The article is about the most well-known topics about soft drinks. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Soft drinks articles
• Mid - The article is about a topic within the field that may or may not be commonly known outside the soft drinks community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Soft drinks articles
• Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the field of soft drinks studies and is not generally common knowledge outside that community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Soft drinks articles

We are currently discussing which articles should be counted as being of Top-importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Soft Drinks/Assessment/Top-importance articles. All members should feel free to take part in the discussion.

[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.

1. A&W Root Beer

A pretty good article. I would like it to be reassessed.

1. Pepsi Blue

Because it was there, calling to be loved. Recommend regrade to Start|Low.

[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] January 2, 2009

(No changes today)

[edit] December 30, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] December 26, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] December 22, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] December 21, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] December 18, 2008

• Red Bull Cola (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] December 14, 2008

• Milk (talk) B-Class (No-Class) removed.

[edit] December 10, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] December 4, 2008

• Wired (energy drink) (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] November 30, 2008

• RC Cola reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
• Fido Dido (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] November 26, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] November 23, 2008

• Coca-Cola reassessed from GA-Class (No-Class) to B-Class (No-Class)

[edit] November 13, 2008

• POWERade (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) renamed to Powerade
• Spruce beer reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)
• VegitaBeta reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to Stub-Class (No-Class)

[edit] October 27, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] October 22, 2008

• Killer Buzz (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) removed.
• The Coca-Cola Company reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to B-Class (No-Class)

[edit] October 16, 2008

• Tampico beverages (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) renamed to Tampico Beverages

[edit] October 13, 2008

• Purple Beverage Company (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) added.
• Killer Buzz (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] October 9, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] October 6, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] October 2, 2008

• Candler Building (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) renamed to Candler Building (Atlanta, Georgia)
• Cheers (Soda) (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) removed.
• Canada Dry reassessed from B-Class (No-Class) to Start-Class (No-Class)

[edit] September 29, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 26, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 24, 2008

• Odwalla reassessed from GA-Class (No-Class) to FA-Class (No-Class)

[edit] September 17, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 14, 2008

• Milk substitute (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] September 9, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 4, 2008

(No changes today)

[edit] September 1, 2008

• Odwalla reassessed from Unassessed-Class (No-Class) to GA-Class (No-Class)

[edit] August 26, 2008

• Cola wars (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) renamed to Cola Wars
• Adina World Beat Beverages (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] August 21, 2008

• Arnold Palmer (drink) (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] August 14, 2008

• Odwalla Inc. (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) renamed to Odwalla
• Venom Energy (talk) Stub-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] August 12, 2008

• Apple Juice (Odwalla) (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.
• Food bars (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.
• Odwalla Inc. (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.
• Superfood (Odwalla) (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-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 Soft Drinks

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Soft drinks articles by quality/1 (411 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Soft drinks articles by quality/2 (97 articles)

See also: assessed article categories.								Last update: January 2, 2009