| The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program. The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Military history articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. Please take into account the unique aspects of our rating system. Lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles—with the exception that they progress toward featured list—so that we can use MILHIST's B-class criteria to see how developed the lists are instead of a generic "list" category. Also note that C-class is not included on this list, as the project has chosen not to adopt it; therefore, all articles within our scope must be assessed either as Start-class or B-class. - See also the general assessment FAQ and 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 {{WPMILHIST}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 3. Someone put a {{WPMILHIST}} 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 Military history 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 about lists?
- Lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status.
- 12. Why is C-class not utilized?
- C-class was adopted by the 1.0 Assessment Team in June 2008, but the option of implementing C-class was left to individual projects. An initial decision was made to forgo the use of the class, but a later discussion among our project's contributors generated interest in the class. In March 2009, a referendum on the introduction of C-class failed to show consensus for implementation, which led us to forgo the C-class rating in favor of maintaining the Start/B-class system already in use.
- 13. 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 the project coordinators directly.
- 14. Does military history have its own stub tag?
- Yes, we have several; see the manual of style for more details.
[edit] Assessment instructions An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax): - {{WPMILHIST| ... | class=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used: Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status. Also note that C-class is not included on this list, as our project has choosen not to adopt the C-class rating; therefore, all articles within our scope must be assessed either as Start-Class or B-Class. Pages outside the main namespace (such as portals, images, categories, and user pages) are automatically assigned a class of "NA", indicating that they lie outside the assessment scheme. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed military history articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below. [edit] Quality scale | Class | Criteria | Formal process | Example |  FA | Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review. | Featured article candidates | USS Connecticut (BB-18) (as of February 2009) |  A | The article meets the following five criteria: - A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
- A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
- A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
- A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
- A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
See also the A-Class review & criteria FAQ. | Military history A-Class review | SM U-66 (as of February 2009) |  GA | Reserved for articles that meet the good article criteria and have received good article status. | Good article nominations | Japanese battleship Haruna (as of February 2009) | | B | The article meets the following five criteria: - B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
- B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
- B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
- B4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
- B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ. | May be assigned by any reviewer A checklist in {{WPMILHIST}} is used to track the criteria (see the project banner instructions for more details) | Frank Lukis (as of February 2009) | | C | C-class was adopted by the 1.0 Assessment Team in June 2008, but the option of implementing C-class was left to individual projects. An initial decision was made to forgo the use of the class, but a later discussion among our project's contributors generated interest in the class. In March 2009, a referendum on the introduction of C-class failed to show consensus for implementation, which led us to forgo the C-class rating in favor of maintaining the Start/B-class system already in use. C-Class is listed here for illustrative purposes only, and should not be used to assess an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. The {{WPMILHIST}} template will not display or support the class. All articles must be assessed either as Start-Class or B-Class. | | Start | The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: - A particularly 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
| May be assigned by any reviewer | William L. Waller, Jr. (as of February 2009) | | Stub | The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. | May be assigned by any reviewer | Bengal Regiment (as of July 2008) | [edit] Statistics [edit] Current status Military history
articles | Importance | | None | Total | | Quality | | FA | 476 | 476 | | A | 207 | 207 | | GA | 726 | 726 | | B | 4428 | 4428 | | Start | 48259 | 48259 | | Stub | 42402 | 42402 | | Assessed | 96498 | 96498 | | Unassessed | 144 | 144 | | Total | 96642 | 96642 | [edit] Task force statistics [edit] Requests for assessment - Please also check Category:Unassessed military history articles for articles needing assessment.
 | Please note that this section is now a separate, transcluded sub-page, which you might like to watchlist separately. Thanks! | 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. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. B-Class requests are assessed using the five B-class criteria(FAQ). Please consider entering articles you have worked on in the military history article writing contest. Battle of Wawon created on request from Wikiproject Turkey. Jim101 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC) - I was going to list this article here myself. I've given it a C-Class rating for other projects and Start-Class for this one, but it really needs someone from this project to assess it against the B-Class criteria. If it meets the standards, feel free to bump up the assessments in the other banners too. PC78 (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I think this is up to B class standard. Certainly meets B1, B3, B4 and B5. Not sure about B2 (coverage and accuracy), as I've not got any specific knowledge of this particular battle and the article takes mostly an overview approach, however, I think it is sufficient for B class. If anyone disagrees, please let me know. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Price's Raid Previously assessed at Start Class; it's undergone significant improvement since then.-Ecjmartin (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC) - Assessed as B class. In reality it is not B class on a technicality, though, as a couple of paragraphs are without an inline citation (e.g. first paragraph in Background section and first paragraph of Battles section), however, the article is on the whole very well cited and it would probably not be fair to assess as a Start in this case. Some suggestions for future improvement might be gained by a peer review. There are some WP:MOS issues, mainly around the use of endashes as parentheses (should be spaced endashes or unspaced emdashes), but that is not relevant to a B class review. I'd be obliged if you could add the citations to the paragraphs that need them. Anyway, well done. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Got one; looking for the other. Thanks!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Szigetvár - Improved. Is it a B-class? --Kebeta (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC) - I believe this one to be of a B class standard. I do not have any specific knowledge of the topic, however. For a more in depth review, you might consider a peer review. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Battles of Komárom and Battle of Szőreg in the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, more info at the discussion page. Si Trew (talk) 08:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC) - Both Start class, as they need in line citations for B class. Good effort so far, though. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Castello Estense and Castello di Borgomasino. I have assessed Castello di Montalto too, I think misses just an infobox,but I wonder if it's right--Robyvecchio (talk) 13:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC) - Confirm Start class for di Montalto. I have changed the parameters to "no" for referencing for it, though, as it doesn't meet the project's referencing criteria for B class. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- Castello Estense is a Start class in my opinion, as it does not have in line citations. Other than that, though, it seems like it probably meets all the other B class criteria. If you could add at least one in line citation per paragraph, it could be re-rated a B, I believe. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Elizabeth City. I have done what I wanted to do with this article. Please assess for B-class. PKKloeppel (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - I believe this one is up to B class standard. — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
SMS Scharnhorst - My triumphant (though probably short-lived) return to article writing. Can someone check for B-class please? Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC) - Needs one cite to make B-class. See comments on talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I had tagged that with the {{cn}} so I wouldn't forget it, but then I forgot to remove it when I couldn't find a source for it. So that worked out as planned :) Parsecboy (talk) 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Polikarpov I-6 Back to my usual prototypes, please assess for B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC) - B-Class it is...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Greek battleship Salamis - recently expanded, can someone check for B-class? Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC) War of Bavarian Succession expanded, cited, explained, clarified, etc. Could someone evaluate for B class? Auntieruth55 (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - Looks good for B-class, nice work! Parsecboy (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Selwyn Porter: new article. Needs a first assessment. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC) - Still Start, it needs at least one section header to satisfy B3. Other than that, it looks good. Parsecboy (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Polikarpov I-5 Another major expansion, please assess for B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 7th Brigade (Australia): expanded and added citations. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Belém Tower:expanded and added inline citations. I tried to follow the style rules and quality scale criteria. It was rated start-class 15 November 2007. Thought you might want to know that one of the articles in your project has been improved, Strafpeloton2 (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Yes, indeed. Thanks for that. I've assessed as B class. — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Battle of Gang Toi: rewritten and expanded. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 12:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC) - Congratulations, it's a B. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Charles Eaton (RAAF officer) - my last new article for 2009, hopefully something of a pièce de résistance (keep an eye out for it at GAN and ACR, all you Henry Allingham World War I Contestants)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC) - Already a B. Deserves higher though. Great work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Petlyakov Pe-3 Massively expanded, please evaluate for B-class.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC) - Easy B. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Add new requests above this line If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please list it for peer review instead. [edit] Backlogs Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories: A full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly. |
