Shark articles | Importance | | Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | | Quality | FA | 1 | 2 | | | | 3 | GA | 3 | 2 | 20 | 13 | 3 | 41 | | B | 5 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 18 | | C | | 2 | | 2 | | 4 | | Start | | 4 | 32 | 36 | | 72 | | Stub | | 2 | 7 | 118 | 27 | 154 | | List | 1 | 1 | 1 | | | 3 | | Assessed | 10 | 19 | 64 | 171 | 31 | 295 | | Unassessed | | | | 59 | 228 | 287 | | Total | 10 | 19 | 64 | 230 | 259 | 582 | | Article assessment is the process by which shark related articles are sorted into different qualities. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles. [edit] Assessment scale The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories. Official WikiPedia Grading Scheme 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. | L'incoronazione di Poppea (as of December 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) | These criteria apply to general-content articles. Shark articles have additional criteria/guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for an article of each class; see the talk page for discussion of these. Each shark related article has its assessment included inside the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk}} template, such as {{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sharks/SharksTalk|class=B}}. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's discussion pagefor more information. [edit] Specific requirements An article about a species has the following requirements: - A taxobox - Following the guidelines set out by the Tree of Life WikiProject
- A picture in the taxobox - Clearly identifiable image of the species
- Introduction - A short summary-like paragraph
- Naming - Why the species has that name, names in other languages, etc.
- Distribution - Information about where they are found - oceanic, reef, etc.
- Distribution map - Follow the guidelines on the template shark article to put a map at the bottom of the taxobox
- Anatomy - Body shape, respiration, life histories, etc.
- Diet - What they eat
- Behaviour - description of the behaviour exhibited by the species
- Reproduction - how the species mates and reproduces
- References - A references section at the end, preferably with inline sourcing throughout the article
[edit] Assessment guidelines The following are specific assessment guidelines specifically for shark related articles. - Stub class- No structure, only brief sentence or two - Use {{Stub-Class}}
- Start class- Some structure, brief paragraph - Use {{Start-Class}}
- B class- Decent structure, at least one paragraph for most required headers, inline sourcing, includes distribution map and at least one image - Use {{B-Class}}
- GA class- All required headers with good amount of text, a few relevant images. Should have pased GA - Use {{GA-Class}}
- A class- Everything is fully mentioned, sub-sections for larger headers, cite web formatting, should be nearly ready for FAC - Use {{A-Class}}
- FA class- Passed FAC - Use {{FA-Class}}
[edit] Importance | Top | Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia | | High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge | | Mid | Subject fills in more minor details | | Low | Subject is mainly of specialist interest. | [edit] Assessment process To create a new assessment discussion here, add the article to be assessed in a level three (eg. ===[[Article name]]===) sub-section of the Article assessments section below. Give the article's exact name in the title with a wikilink. Finally, add the "assessed=yes" parameter to the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/SharksTalk}} template near the top of the article's talk page. After the header add your comments in a table like this: {| | CLASS || IMPORTANCE ||REMARKS - ~~~~ |} Substituting CLASS for what you think the class is, IMPORTANCE for what you think the importance is and REMARKS for any comments you have on the article and then sign off with four tildes (~~~~) after the REMARKS. When filling in the CLASS use the class templates to colour the table cell: - {{Stub-Class}}
- {{Start-Class}}
- {{B-Class}}
- {{GA-Class}}
- {{A-Class}}
- {{FA-Class}}
And for IMPORTANCE use the importance templates: - {{Top-importance}}
- {{High-importance}}
- {{Mid-importance}}
- {{Low-importance}}
Current practice is that Stub-Start-B assessments are done by individual editors when looking at an article. Before upgrading to A-class the article should be discussed here to make sure everyone agrees. Once the article is A-class you should probably get general peer review on it and then follow the normal process for making the article a FA article. Peer review (PR) and FA candidates (FAC) should be announced here to get more specific comments from the editors. [edit] Article assessments Automatically updated list of shark articles and their status. | Stub | Low | Have only taxobox and references Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | | B | High | Suggest submit for GA. Comments? Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | | B | Top | Good inline references, good headers. I think this could be submitted for GA. chris_huh 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | | Start | High | Only behaviour and intro section. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | | Start | High | Good start class, but a bit thin for B class. Stefan 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | | B | Top | Lacks inline references! Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | | B | High | Resonable content. Lacks inline references. Stefan 09:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | -
- Proper inline references have been provided in the new revision of this article. The over-all content of this article has also been considerably improved. LeGenD 03:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- This article have been submitted for GA class. LeGenD 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
| Start | High | Good start class, but a bit thin for B class. Stefan 09:20, 30 September 2006 (UTC) | GA | Top | After collaboration of the week I nominated this for GA. Stefan 14:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC) Accepted. Stefan 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC) | | B | High | Submitted for GA 5 Sep. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) - Failed GA due to occasionally has a non-encyclopedic tone and to few references. Stefan 14:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
| -
-
-
- COTF finished, what should we do now, reapply for GA or maybe get a peer-review, or just leave it for a bit? chris_huh 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should reapply, think the text is much better now, maybe we need some more references, I will continue to work on that for a while, but I have very little time for wiki for the next week or so! Stefan 09:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I nominated it again, lets see what happens. Stefan 08:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
| B | Top | Submitted for GA 5 Sep. Stefan 14:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC) | |