Aviation WikiProject
General information
Main project page	talk
Notability & Style guide	talk
Showcase & Popular pages
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Maintenance	talk
→ Article alerts
→ New articles	talk
→ AfD record	talk
Departments Assessment (Log) talk  → B-Class/A-Class  → Instructions Collaboration talk Peer review talk Outreach department talk  → Current newsletter New! Contest talk
Project organization Coordinators talk Members talk Project banner talk Portals Project category talk
Templates Infobox templates  → Aviation infobox talk  → Airport infobox talk  → Airline infobox talk  → Aircraft infobox talk  → Aviator infobox talk  → Aircraft accident infobox talk  → Company infobox talk Navigation boxes talk
Sub-projects Aircraft project talk  → Engines task force talk Airlines project talk  → Defunct Airlines project talk Airports project talk Gliding project talk Rotorcraft talk Military aviation talk Aviation accident talk Air sports task force talk Aerospace biography talk
This box: view • talk • edit  · changes

Welcome to the assessment department of the Aviation WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's aviation articles. While much of the work is (may in the future be) 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 {{WPAVIATION}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Aviation articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The running totals for aviation assessments are shown in the table below, also found here, and the overall project is found at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index.

Contents 1 Frequently asked questions 2 Instructions on how to assess an Aviation article 2.1 Quality scale 3 Statistics 3.1 Current stats 3.2 Statistics by task force 4 Requesting an assessment

[edit] Frequently asked questions

See also the general assessment FAQand the project's B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ and A-Class review & criteria FAQ.

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 

The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.

2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 

Just add {{WPAVIATION}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a {{WPAVIATION}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do? 

Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).

4. Who can assess articles? 

Any member of the Aviation WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.

5. How do I rate an article? 

Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.

6. Can I request that someone else rate an article? 

Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

7. 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.

8. Where can I get more comments about an article? 

The review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for peer review there.

9. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.

10. Aren't the ratings subjective? 

Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!

11. What if I have a question not listed here? 

If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact a project member directly.

[edit] Instructions on how to assess an Aviation article

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameters in the {{WPAVIATION}} project banner on its talk page. Stub, Start, and non-article assessments require only the basic parameter; "class=start" (for example). To assess C-class or higher requires the use of the B-Class checklist. (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

 {{WPAVIATION |class= }} 

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class aviation articles)
• FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class aviation articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class aviation articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class aviation articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class aviation articles)
• C (adds articles to Category:C-Class aviation articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class aviation articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class aviation articles)
• Category (adds articles to Category:Category-Class aviation articles)
• Template (adds articles to Category:Template-Class aviation articles)
• Image (adds articles to Category:Image-Class aviation articles)
• List (adds articles to Category:List-Class aviation articles)
• Disambig (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class aviation articles)
• Project (adds articles to Category:Project-Class aviation articles)
• NA (for where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class aviation articles)

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

[edit] Quality scale

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.	Battle of Edson's Ridge
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: Shortcuts: WP:ACLASS WP:A? 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.	Operation Linebacker II
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.	15th Marine Expeditionary Unit
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.	F/A-18E/F Super Hornet
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.	1st Battalion 2nd Marines
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.	16th Infantry Regiment (South Korea)
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. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions and alternative (alt) text if necessary. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. 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.	FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives
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.	Busiest airports in the United Kingdom by total passenger traffic
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:Aircraft by type
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.	Eureka Airport, Melbourne Airport (disambiguation)
Portal	Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class.	Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics.	Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date.	Portal:Science
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:Aviation lists

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current stats

Aviation WikiProject assessment statistics Aviation articles Importance None Total Quality FA 43 43 FL 2 2 A 11 11 GA 106 106 B 712 712 C 2406 2406 Start 10292 10292 Stub 15477 15477 List 1521 1521 Assessed 30570 30570 Unassessed 3 3 Total 30573 30573 worklist • log • category

Article class Project Aviation Aircraft Airlines Airports Military Aviation Aviation accident Rotorcraft Gliding Defunct Airlines Air sports Biography Aero engine  % of Total FA 44 5 2 1 44 9 0 1 0 0 22 1 0.111% FL 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0.005% A 11 4 0 0 27 0 1 0 0 0 4 0 0.028% GA 106 11 16 15 54 20 0 3 0 0 33 0 0.273% B 713 371 25 44 756 44 28 9 9 2 117 31 1.838% C 2406 1,232 75 554 0 74 77 35 16 19 146 119 6.204% Start 10293 3851 1069 1823 7548 430 247 240 157 99 1276 475 26.541% Stub 15477 2684 1535 7787 4593 293 161 192 556 87 1474 200 39.908% List 1521 253 467 532 0 37 8 4 10 2 65 23 3.922% Template 1186 549 179 238 0 13 18 9 2 7 12 70 3.058% Category 5750 3331 590 826 0 110 52 91 252 45 224 52 14.826% Disambig 485 32 13 416 0 2 3 0 2 1 1 0 1.251% File 83 40 17 5 0 2 7 1 2 0 2 0 0.214% Portal 632 36 1 1 0 4 0 0 1 0 20 0 1.63% Project 28 5 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0.072% Unassessed 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.01% Total 38782 12415 3996 12257 13032 1047 606 588 1129 262 3399 972 100%  % of Total 100% 32.012% 10.304% 31.605% 33.603% 2.7% 1.563% 1.516% 2.911% 0.676% 8.764% 2.506%

[edit] Statistics by task force

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you submit an article for assessment, please return the favor and assess another one on the list!

• 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.
• Note: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, or wish to have it classified as an A-Class article, please use the WikiProject Review department instead.
• If you want help improving an article, try the collaboration department and read Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment/Instructions.

1. Vladivostok Air Please assess for B-class, thanks! --76.121.4.143 (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

   B-Class -Canglesea (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Pier Piccio -- Request reassessment, as previous assessment was based on a rule of thumb contradictory to Wikipedia rules, which state: "There is no numerical requirement for a particular density of citations or for some predetermined number of citations in an article..."
   • C-Class. There are guidelines on how to use inline citations and what constitutes standard appendices to articles. Please review WP:Layout. The article requires a significant copyedit to blend all the facts from different sources into a cohesive article. My preference (not requirement) is to follow the layout in {{Biography}}. I could go on, but the rest is more suited to a peer review and not an assessment. --Born2flie (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
3. Igor Sikorsky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - I added the B-Class checklist and did a cursory evaluation, but because I am a contributing editor to the article, I'd prefer that someone double checked to make sure I wasn't too lenient. --Born2flie (talk) 04:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

   Took care of a couple cite tags and stuff. I think it meets B class checks now, but could use some work. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Seattle-Tacoma International Airport I'm requesting a re-assessment to see how high it can go? Probably C or B level.--76.121.4.143 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
   • Assessed as a C. Has some uncited parts. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Mikulin AM-34 expanded article, please assess for B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

   Was assessed by Ian Rose. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

6. Korean Air Flight 858 added section heading structure, please assess for B Class. -Canglesea (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

   Still C-class over concerns about completeness. See comments on talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

7. Yakovlev Yak-1000 new article, please assess for B-class--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

   Was assessed as B-Class by Trevor. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Flying Tiger Line Flight 739 former stub that got expanded; possible B-class now. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 00:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

   Reassessed as B-Class - Trevor MacInnis ^contribs 03:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you submit an article for assessment, please return the favor and assess another one on the list!