Welcome to the article assessment department of WikiProject Australia. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia articles.
Ratings are performed using the {{WP Australia}} project banner with additional parameters according to the quality of the article. When a parameter is used, the articles is placed into the appropriate sub-category of Category:Australia articles by quality and Category:Australia articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist
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 recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
[edit] Frequently asked questions
Australia
articles | Importance |
| Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total |
| Quality |
 FA | 6 | 17 | 68 | 66 | 8 | 165 |
| FL | | 2 | 7 | 20 | | 29 |
 A | 1 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 31 |
 GA | | 13 | 69 | 142 | 11 | 235 |
| B | 36 | 163 | 510 | 701 | 358 | 1768 |
| C | 17 | 67 | 339 | 891 | 331 | 1645 |
| Start | 12 | 213 | 2113 | 14226 | 6145 | 22709 |
| Stub | 1 | 41 | 793 | 24879 | 17948 | 43662 |
| List | 1 | 8 | 62 | 1060 | 1261 | 2392 |
| Assessed | 74 | 525 | 3971 | 41995 | 26071 | 72636 |
| Unassessed | | | 2 | 33 | 907 | 942 |
| Total | 74 | 525 | 3973 | 42028 | 26978 | 73578 |
- How do I add an article to WikiProject Australia?
- Just add {{WP Australia}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- How can I get my article rated?
- There is currently a backlog of over 7,000 unassessed Australia articles. Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any editor is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
- Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
- Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
- Where can I get more comments about my article?
- The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
- 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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
- How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
- A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
[edit] How to assess articles
An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WP Australia}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):
- {{WP Australia| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Australia articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
The following values may be used for the importance parameter:
The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to Template, Disambig, Cat or NA and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.
[edit] Quality scale
WikiProject article quality grading scheme | Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
| FA | The article has attained featured article status. | More detailed criteria | | The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. 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) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, 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 (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) 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 that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, 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. | Brazilian cruiser Bahia
(as of November 2009) |
| A | The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, 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: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. | Cologne War
(as of October 2009) |
| GA | The article has attained good article status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets 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 in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- (b) 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—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; 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. | Typhoon Elsie (1989)
(as of November 2009) |
 B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the six B-Class 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.
| | 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, 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. | KV55
(as of November 2009) |
 C | 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. | Architecture of Denmark
(as of November 2009) |
 Start | 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 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 | 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. | Geodia gibberosa
(as of July 2009) |
| FL | The article has attained featured list status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the featured list criteria: - Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
- Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
- Comprehensiveness.
- (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
- (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
- Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
- Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
- 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. | Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
(as of February 2009) |
 List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 aikidoka
(as of June 2007) |
 Category | Any category falls under this class. | Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. | Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. | Category:Software |
 Disambig | Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. | Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. | Aussiecon |
 Template | Any template falls under this class. The most common types of template include infoboxes and navboxes. | Different types of template serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. | Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. | Template:Martial arts |
 NA | Any non-article page that fits no other classification. | The page contains no article content, and is probably not useful to any casual reader. | Look out for mis-classified articles. Currently many NA-class articles need to be re-classified. | |
[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 Australia.
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 analysed. |
[edit] Article importance standards
- Capital cities - Generally classed as top to high importance.
- Cities - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
- Companies - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
- Places - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
- Schools - Generally classed as mid to low importance.
[edit] Requesting an assessment
WikiProject Australia's request for assessment focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Australia-related articles. If you have made significant changes to an Australia-related article and would like an outside opinion or a new assessment rating, please feel free to list it below.
If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.
Instructions
- Add your assessment request to the list of awaiting requests using the example below.
- Under your header, place a few comments relating to your request.
- Sign your request with four tildes ~~~~ and save
- Assessors: Please review awaiting requests and update the article's talk page template with your assessment.
Example
===={{la|article}}====
Comments relating to your request for an article assessment go here. ~~~~
| Please place new requests at the top of each section. This is not the place to discuss article assessment disputes. If you dispute an assessment, please use the Disputes section. |
[edit] Current requests for assessment
Please add your request for an assessment to the top of the list. Fulfilled requests may be removed by any editor.
[edit] November 2009
I have recently done a major rewriting and fixing of this page.Thanks Stravin (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this article should be rated of high importance as other Universities and even some high schools without as much prominence are rated of mid to high importance also.
[edit] October 2009
There have been quite a few changes to this article since it was first rated - I think it might be above start-class now. JVPurvis (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I just assessed this one as C-Class in WikiProject Science. Could someone please re-assess it for WikiProject Australia? :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] September 2009
Please assess - Thanks. This is one of Australia's most notorious cases of political corruption. Cablehorn (talk) 05:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Please assess the article. Thanks. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- I have rated it C.--Grahame (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] August 2009
A start level article of significant importance, due to the changes it brought about in Australian-Chinese relations as well as policy changes within China, Australia and the rest of the world. It has also forever changed the way foreign business look at working in China and vice versa. If someone could give it any sort of rating so as to be an indicator on what to work at. I personally think it should be of high importance. Also, I think this article is sorely neglected for the global impact it had. Cheers. Capital Markets (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've rated this start, partly because its an on-going event.--Grahame (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
A large article with high importance, rated B on WikiProject Bio. Probably B here too. Thanks Stravin (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed.--Grahame (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Currently rated Start, hoping to get it to C at least as it is well referenced. Gibbsyspin 10:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
- I have rerated it C, but it says very little about him outside football.--Grahame (talk) 08:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Currently rated Start, deserves a B. It is well written, laid out well, and has plenty of illustrations, doesnt go into unneccessary detail, is unbiased and stable. It only requires beter referencing to have a shot at a GA. Mdw0 (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated it C. It is mainly a collection of lists and it sources are thin.--Grahame (talk) 08:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
[edit] July 2009
Currently rated as stub by other Wikiprojects, but substantially expanded over the last week or so. Euryalus (talk) 03:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have rerated it C. It would be useful to have some sort of illustatration.--Grahame (talk) 02:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, though the only portrait I can find is on the lid of a snuffbox, which may not format well for an article. I can probably find some images of the ships he commanded, or a map showing the route of his passage on the Endeavour. There's also a poor-quality image of his coat of arms on the wall in Merton Priory, but its too dark to make a good article illustration. Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
Article needs a re-assessment. Chumchum14 (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated it C (just), but it needs better references.--Grahame (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Additional sections and minor work has been added since it was rated Please re-rate it. Adamdaley (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
- We only rate up to B. You need to go to WP:MILHIST for A rating or to WP:GAN for Good Article rating.--Grahame (talk) 02:10, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Entire article rewritten, needs a reassessment. Thanks Ravanast (talk) 23:27, 4 July 2009
- Reassessed C by Shaidar cuebiyar.--Grahame (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
needs a re-assessment. thanks, Chumchum14 (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated it Start. It needs independent sources in order to provide a critical assessment of his work with citations and to be rewritten in accordance with WP:MOS for a higher rating.--Grahame (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This definetely needs a re-assessment. thanks, Chumchum14 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated it start, but it needs to have reliable third-party sources, with in line citations for a higher rating.--Grahame (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] June 2009
A large amount done for this article by me. added photo and more information. Could be a 'b' Thanks Stravin (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done.--Grahame (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
This article should be listed as low importance to the Australian wiki project. It features a largely unknown band, with no sourced references to their apparent 15 seconds of arguable fame. It also contains little information. I'd even vote deletion... 202.139.186.130 (talk) 22:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Done, but be bold.--Grahame (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think this should be in the start-class area, again. Thanks, Chumchum14 (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated it start.--Grahame (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I've made a few changes and i think this should be in the start-class area. thanks, Chumchum14 (talk) 06:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated it start.--Grahame (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
This is one I've been editing for a long time and I think is an important one. It is referenced quite a bit and is comprehensive without being too detailed or listy. The History needs a bit more referencing. I think it could get a low 'B'. It also needs an importance asessment as it is currently unknown. The school is pretty notable for its dance pieces a couple of years ago and its INXS alumni and a NSW politician. Thanks again Stravin (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated it B just. Low importance, because few schools are particularly notable.--Grahame (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] May 2009
I've been biuling this article with references and more info on politics. Can't seem to find any info on his family life or personal life. Will keep looking. I think this might scrape a 'C' class. Currently stub class. Comments welcome. Thanks Stravin (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Done. I seem to have created the original stub as part of an exercise to create stub for serving NSW pollies but I'd forgotten all about it. Much improved.--Grahame (talk) 02:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Received no rating yet. Want to expand on it to include personal life etc. according to upcoming news article, but it still needs 1) a photo and 2) a rating. Thanks in advance.
- Rerated Start, but you need to read WP:MOS, particularly Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Grahame (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Major work done to expand the article, which has been difficult given limited resources. Shelbypark (talk) 05:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated C, because I'm not sure whether it is comprehensive.--Grahame (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been extensively improving this page for quite some some and added a lot of references. I have also made sure that info on her political and personal is accurate and not speculative. However, I have not been able to get an appropriate photo of her and some things do need some work but i think it is substantially better than a 'Start-class'. Stravin (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have rerated C, close to B (like Barry O'Farrell, it would be good to find something to say about her which is not about politics)--Grahame (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I've done some more work on TE's page and I've added a couple of pictures. The lead section really needs some work (and I'm no good at introductions) but I still think it deserves higher than start class Shelbypark (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have rerated C, following medicine project, but it is close to B. Lead needs a few more sentences summarising the most significant material in what follows.--Grahame (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
This Australian singer-songwriter is on the verge of becoming a top Australian music act, I've tried to add some of the hallmarks of a proper musician's page, but I would like re-assessment of this page as I believe it should be of higher priority within the Australian music project. Zac 125 (talk) 9:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- This article reads a little like an advertisment, it needs to be more critical, ie it needs to reflect comments from reputable sources made on her music which analyses it rather than just praises it. The worst sources are her own web site or fan sites. The article is also unduely listy. It also refers to her by her first name rather than by her surname which is required by Wikipedia to achieve distance so that Wikipedia can be taken seriously for independence and neutrality. Please read WP:MOS.--Grahame (talk) 04:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
[edit] April 2009
I have added a lot to this article since it was assessed as stub-class, and would like to know where it is at now. Tekone Yoshimori (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- rerated C, rather listy and needs a picture.--Grahame (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
This article is of higher importance to other relevant projects; nonetheless this project claims it (it is among the 50 largest Australian companies) and has rated it start so I thought I'd give a heads-up that the article has been completely re-written and expanded. I've also requested GA review and assessment updates from the more relevant mining and companies projects (maybe it's better to just wait and follow their assessment). Bantman (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Rerated B, now at WP:GAN.--Grahame (talk) 02:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] March 2009
had a go at moving this to a new class/standard. My first timeStevepaceman (talk) 09:06, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have rerated Start.--Grahame (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] February 2009
Just spent some time on this former stub. Wondering if I could get an idea of where it's at now...Hack, terrorising wikipedia since 2005 (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated this start. It is still full of short stubby paragraphs and generally lacking in content.--Grahame (talk) 00:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Did some work on this page to get the ball rolling in moving it up to a higher standard. My first attempt at improving an article - added some new information, new sections, and some new references to existing material. By no means perfect but hopefully a lot better than what was there a few days ago. Any assessment or feedback would be much appreciated. Drbelievo (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated it C; it is still fairly listy and has short paragraphs.--Grahame (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Just finished this article after a month's work on it in my sandbox. Have published it but don't know what else needs work. An assessment would be greatly appreciated. Gibbsyspin 02:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- I have rated this start. It currently consists almost entirely of lists and tables. It needs a significant amount of text to gain a higher rating. Also its text at present as a high level of words like "tremendous" and "played brilliantly", which fall foul of Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style.--Grahame (talk) 02:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] January 2009
This article would do better with an importance rating, it would encourage people to work on it more. Does anyone have any advice on getting the standard raised on this article? --In a café we debate decadence a summer butterfly flits (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've given this a "low" importance rating, because few schools are notable enough to be given a higher rating. This has nothing to do with the quality of the article. The article needs inline sourcing from verifiable sources. Please read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Citing sources.--Grahame (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to get this to GA standard, and could use some guidance on whether it is there yet, and if not, what would get it to that point. Cheers. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've rerated C. At a glance it needs a much improved lead to be rated GA. I don't think that the references are formatted in accordance with Wikipedia:Citing sources. It needs a photo.--Grahame (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to get this to GA standard, bearing in mind the constraint that attempts to find a picture of the subject have drawn a blank. Any other suggestions? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I note this is at WP:GAN and comments will no doubt be made there. I think though that it will need a much more substantial lead.--Grahame (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] December 2008
[edit] November 2008
Expanded article from start class, wikified and added inline references and infobox. Shelbypark (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I rerated this C, following medicine project.--Grahame (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Expanded article well referenced, not much more to add--Mdavies 965 (talk) 10:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have rerated this B. It is now at WP:GAN, which is appropriate.--Grahame (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Expanded article, improved references and removed dead links since previous reassessment Shelbypark (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Substantial expansion and sophistication since last assessment. Also, much more informative than article on nearby Collaroy, New South Wales which is rated C-Class, while Dee Why is only Start Class. Terovian (talk) 14:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I rerated as C-class, too much dependence (over half) on Warringah Council sources, also the history section is lacking any substance and the government section is very limited on the LGA has only current members with a passing note. Gnangarra 01:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Requesting assessment following expansion. Dan arndt (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- re-rated as B-class not much else that can be added to article Gnangarra 01:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Requesting reassessment following substantial expansion. McWomble (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- Now rated B.--Grahame (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've had a read of this. Needs work on punctuation, but otherwise, not sure what is holding it back from being rated GA. Grahame? Cheers! hamiltonstone (talk) 02:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] October 2008
This article is rated as a stub but I've significantly modified it including references
- I have boosted the assessment to start class. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the internet in australia article has been been restructured and updated stats put in, more neutral viewpoint and more references. may be beyond start category have not rerated. Good if I could have an outside perspective.Digmores (talk) 04:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have rerated as B-class, it has a solid structure and broadly covers the topic, history will need more work and improvement of sources before GA. Also be careful of focusing on news events and individual companies this is meant to be an overview article such specific can/should be within the company articles. Gnangarra 13:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I recently expanded this article from the short section that it was, and feel that it may exceed Stub quality. Could someone have a gander? \ / (⁂) 01:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I have rerated C, but it is still missing some biography.--Grahame (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Grahame, and suggest using WP:CIT for the notes/citations, where possible. Shelbypark (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] September 2008
New article after some time researching and writing, keen for an idea how it went and be improved. SEO75 [talk] 09:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'm relatively new to WP and not yet confident enough to rate pages, but I would suggest looking at your inline references. There are a few paragraphs without references. I would really like to see an inline ref on the statement The prima facie cause of the incident was excessive speed; in the opening paragraph - but maybe that's just me. Otherwise it's a nice article. Shelbypark (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I've done a bit of work on this article (photos, info box, expanded information and references), and was wondering if it now qualifies as C Class? Shelbypark (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have rerated thus C, but with improvements to references it could be B. The ADB and the first and fourth external links could provide refs for most of this material. The second external link is dead and the third is irrelevant.--Grahame (talk) 07:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if someoune could reassess the Kew Asylum - I have significantly expanded it since it was assessed as a Start class. Shelbypark (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have rerated B and suggest WP:GAN, but I don't like lead being squeezed between photo and infobox. Photo should really be at top of infobox, although I don't know how to do that. Also photos shouldn't be more than 300px (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images) and refs should come straight after puctuation.--Grahame (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestions. I have rearranged the photo and info box at the top, made some of the thumbnails smaller and fixed up the punctuation in relation to references. Is there anything else I should do ? Shelbypark (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have changed a couple of in-line links with refs. In-line links are not acceptable for good articles (but then again refs are not meant to be used where information has not been sourced from them; things refered to in articles should really have their own articles if they are notable). Citations should be in consistant formats (as produced by cite web etc templates for instance).--Grahame (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for the WP:CIT link - I have finally corrected all the citations and I've nominated it for GA Shelbypark (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, we have just recently been reviewed to become an GA article, however due to some problems (which we have now fixed) we didnt meet the criteria. We were wondering if someone can please to an importance rating assessment for us. We are hoping for a rating of High/Top for WPSchools and mid/high for WPAustralia. All suggestions, comments, etc. welcomed and will be grealty appreciated. Thank you in advance! Sheepunderscore (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have changed importance to mid for Education in Australia, and for Melbourne because it is one of the more famous schools in Australia. But requests for WPschool assessment are a bit out of scope here! Wikipedia is not a place to promote schools. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] August 2008
have made many changes since last rating as Start class - now B or C? 60.242.81.226 (talk) 09:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Article has since been assessed by Sheepunderscore (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC) as C-class
- (Try to look for more independent and reliable references! References such as Facebook are NOT adequate)
Many changes since last rating in August 2007 including layouts, references, etc. Jayec (talk) 01:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
- Article has since been assessed by Sheepunderscore (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC) as B-class & low importance.
- (Try to look for more references!)
I have added additional information, references and photographs to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- It looks as if this has been nominated for a good article nomination, wait for the outcome of this process. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
- It passed GA, made A class, and now claims the featured article status (from 16 September 2008)! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I have added additional information and references to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- B class looks about right. You could consider improvements to make it GA nominee. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I have added additional information, references and a photograph to this article. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Article has since been assessed by Woody as B-class
[edit] Participants
[edit] Active
Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team
- Abb401 (talk · contribs)
- Akitora (talk · contribs) - military history, politics, Canberra, other stuff
- Arnzy (talk · contribs)
- Cdlw93 (talk · contribs)
- CJ (talk · contribs)
- Comte0 (talk · contribs)
- Daniel99091 (talk · contribs)
- Frickeg (talk · contribs) - mammals, birds
- Gnangarra (talk · contribs)
- Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) science, government departments, technology, also looking at requests,
- grahamec (talk · contribs)
- groovybill (talk · contribs)
- Hamiltonstone (talk · contribs)
- HB4026 (talk · contribs)
- Jamessugrono (talk · contribs) Education in Australia
- JRG (talk · contribs)
- Lincalinca (talk · contribs) - Australian Music and Literature
- Longhair (talk · contribs)
- LukeNE (talk · contribs) - South Australia, Roads & Rail, Geography
- PConlon (talk · contribs)
- SatuSuro (talk · contribs)
- RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs)
- Thuringowacityrep (talk · contribs) - Thuringowa city and related pages
- VirtualSteve (talk · contribs)
- Mattwashdc (talk · contribs) - military law
- Sheepunderscore (talk · contribs)
- RoryReloaded (talk · contribs) - anything, I LIV' 'ERE
- Candyman0000 (talk · contribs)
- Wallie (talk · contribs)
[edit] Inactive
- 99of9 (talk · contribs)
- Amandajm (talk · contribs)
- Ansell (talk · contribs)
- Ansett (talk · contribs)
- Atlantis Hawk (talk · contribs)
- bradelle2619 (talk · contribs)- Australian places, South Coast
- Crocodile Punter (talk · contribs)
- Cuda918 (talk · contribs)
- darcyj (talk · contribs) - cricket, political history, Canberra
- darkliight (talk · contribs)
- Garglebutt (talk · contribs)
- Golden Wattle (talk · contribs)
- Iorek85 (talk · contribs)
- LiquidGhoul (talk · contribs)
- LordRobert (talk · contribs)
- Mcgrath50 (talk · contribs)
- Paddington62 (talk · contribs)
- SauliH (talk · contribs) - WP:AH
- Shadow007 (talk · contribs)
- Tim.andrews (talk · contribs)
- Todd661 (talk · contribs) - Central Coast articles
- Xtra (talk · contribs)
[edit] Example assessments
To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.
Quality
- {{WP Australia|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
- {{WP Australia|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
- {{WP Australia|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
- {{WP Australia|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
- {{WP Australia|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
- {{WP Australia|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
- {{WP Australia}} - to leave the article un-assessed.
Importance
- {{WP Australia|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
- {{WP Australia|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
- {{WP Australia|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
- {{WP Australia|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.
