This is the WikiProject Texas assessment summary page. See WP:1.0 and WP:WVWP for more information. For Texas articles, see Category:Texas or Category:Texas-related lists. For Texas stubs, see Category:Texas stubs. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Texas}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Texas articles by quality and Category:Texas articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
- 1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
- Just add {{WikiProject Texas}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 2. Someone put a {{WikiProject Texas}} template on an article, but it's not a Texas related topic. 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). If User:WatchlistBot did it, you can add it to the exclusion list for the project (User:WatchlistBot/Texas to make sure that it will not be retagged again.
- 3. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
- The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
- 4. How can I get an article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- 5. Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Texas WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- 6. 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. 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.
- 9. 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!
- 10. 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 monthly statistics may be more accessible.
- 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 any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.
[edit] Instructions An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Texas}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax): - {{WikiProject Texas| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter: For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter: Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Texas 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 NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below. Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Texas articles. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below. [edit] Grading scheme [edit] Quality scale Quality descriptors 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) | [edit] Importance scale Importance descriptors The article's importance, regardless of its quality | 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 peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial |
"DRAFT" WikiProject Texas importance scale: The article's importance, regardless of its quality, particularly in terms of Texas geography, history, demographics, cities and towns, law and government, economy, transportation, education, and professional sports.
Rate articles on overall importance. Use the basic descriptions, guided by the general examples when available. Always give the highest rating suggested by general examples at different levels. | Top | Subject is a must-have for Category:Texas - State government
- Major geological formations and geographic regions
- Cities over 100,000 and major metropolitan areas
| | High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge - Micropolitan areas
- State and national parks
- Major universities, charities and foundations
- Federal highways and waterways
- Military battles, wars and skirmishes
- Cities 50,000 - 99,999
- Sitting Federal and statewide politicians
| | Mid | Subject fills in more minor details - Unique notable cultural, sport and entertainment traditions and celebrations
- Folklore
- Minor geographic and geological sites
- Major architectural landmarks
- Cities/Towns 10,000 - 49,999
- Former federal and statewide politicians; sitting mayors
| | Low | Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial - Non-suburb populations under 10,000
- Famous or notable native or resident biographies
- Local politicians with constituents fewer than 100,000
- City neighborhoods, parks and events
- Individual sporting events
- Minor architectural structures
- Lists and galleries
| [edit] Assessment log (updated by bot) Automatically-updated log; do not modify directly [edit] Requests for assessment If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. - John Christopher Columbus Hill- I created this page, and I'm pretty new, so some feedback would be good.Biosci01 (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research - updated general information, added section on specialized resources, major accomplishments, current areas of researchMcCombs School of Business - just added a campus section. NThomas76207 (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)Herb Adderley - I recently referenced a lot of info that was there, and added (with ref) a decent chunk more. Would anyone mind reassesing the article? I'm guessing it may now be higher than start class.--Rockfang (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Garland, Texas - significant changes since last status - history, education, infrastructure. Pigman5 (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Garland High School - added more history and citations -overview of academic programs Pigman5 (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)Bill White (mayor) - significant additions since last rating kylelovesyou (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC) -
- Upped to B Joe I 20:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Rated start/Low Joe I 20:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Start/Low Joe I 20:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Start/Low Joe I 20:37, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Allready rated C/Low. No, I don't think it's a B, it's just way to short. I don't see to much from the Serenity website to add, tho. You should look to other school articles for a more complete school article. Joe I 20:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Carroll Pickett - former Texas Death Row chaplain, now author and anti-death-penalty advocate, September 2008, needs a second eye for assessment. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) -
- Rated B/Low Could use more on early life, and other info rather than just death penalty info. Joe I 20:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- Rated Start/Low Joe I 20:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Texas - The main article has been under a GA review status for close to a month. It would be nice if someone could review it. Oldag07 (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Just Passed! Oldag07 (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC) University of Mary Hardin-Baylor - Significantly expanded, added a substantial amount of sources and made major corrections. Thanks in advance. Almosthonest06 (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC) - Yes, it has come along, good work. Upgraded to B. Joe I 03:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
EEstor - Would like to request importance of the article be upgraded to Medium while ZENN waits for third-party testing. If the testing fails or is delayed past the end of 2008 importance should be lowered back to Low. Tvillars 2008-06-26 16:17 (UTC) - No, this company is not a signifcant part of Texas, even with good testing results and potential. Joe I 03:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
William S. Livingston - New article. Needs a little work on POV and a some more information from non-UT sources. Cheers, CP 03:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC) - Was already rated start class but I uped it to C. Joe I 03:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Capital MetroRail, I completely redid the entire article, expanded it from stub-class to start-class and added several graphics and important information/stats.Guanako512 (talk) 01:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC) U-Drop Inn, I've rated to start but after extensive clean up, expansion, and sourcing, I believe it may be at a higher class. Collectonian (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Beaumont, Texas- This article has a "B" rating, but I would like some reviews and input so we can get it up to at least "A" status. Thsnks! Deatonjr (talk) 10:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC) -
- Done, Start/Low Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Lee Horsley - The article was never rated. I added more information regarding his career and life. -
- Was done, Start/low Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
University of Houston This is the third-largest university in Texas by enrollment. This article has never been rated. Please feel free to do so. Thanks! Brianreading 22:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Borderfest I made this article since its an importaint part of south texas history. It is well known in south texas and has even reached National recognition as one of the fastest and biggest cultural music festivals with visits from many major artist. I belive this article deserves at the least a Mid importance in scale. Maverick423 20:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC) -
- Done Joe I 02:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Butthole Surfers: never rated on Wiki Texas, but recently received GA ratings on the Biography & Alternative Music Wikis. The Haiku Master 00:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC) -
- Done. I gave it an A, it should be real close to FA. Joe I 03:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done Joe I 03:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Pearl Brewing Company: could use a review, not complete but getting there. --Brownings 03:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC) - This is not really a review, although I would do one when you finish with it. Anyways, I gave it a start class, mainly cause of the sections that are not filled in yet. When you get these done, you may up it to a "B" class, then let me know, I'll give it a review so we can get it to GA, it shouldn't be to hard. :) Joe I 05:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Charles Albright - I added a ton more information to the Charles Albright section, and I think that it should be rated above a start class. I know that I need more citations, but I almost tripeled what what there with facts. Let me know. Thanks! Bryse 19:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)Bryse - Yeah, you did add alot, but I would leave it at start for now because of short intro, few wikilinks, no inline refs, no "see also", and really overall, it's still alittle short. Fix those, add alittle more if you can, and we'll try again. Joe I 04:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Midland, Texas - It has been a long time since this article was last assessed and I'm looking for some validation for the changes/additions/enhancements that have been made over the past several months. I'm hoping it has moved past the B class that it currently resides in. Thanks. Fuhreeus 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC) -
- GA is the next step up, and must approved by the GA process. Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- After a quick look, the only thing I can think of is alittle more history pre 1955, alittle more about the students, and alittle more on the campuses, such as construction, environmentalism, future plans. You may try a better review process, Wikipedia:Peer review. Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Llano, Texas - I understand that this little town isn't super-high on the importance scale, but I've added more information than most of the other Wikipedia pages of small Texas towns. Can someone give me some tips on how to improve this page and get a higher rating? Reba d 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC) -
- Done, see talk page. Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Glenn W. Smith - the article has been flagged as COI, but there are some other flags about this project. Please Review. Thanks. User:Chrisjx - Done, Start, Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
San Antonio Springs - Not yet rated. Recent cleanup and additions have really made the article a lot better. --Brownings 05:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC) - Done, Start Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Katy High School - Not yet rated, have recently added and cleaned up article. - Done, Start Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Richard King(Texas) - Needs to be reviewed. It's very incomplete for something I consider to be of high importance. If reviewed could someone look into the Menger Hotel ghost haunting? The place where he died? Pigman5 03:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC) - Done, Start Low Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
METRO Houston - I added in a ton of information. Before, the section was mediocre at best, and was clearly laughable. I have added in information on METRO's bus, lift, HOV, light rail, and future commuter rail service. Go and check it out. XxTrillvillexX9 7:52 PM, 22 August 2007 (UTC) - Done, B Mid Joe I 21:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done, stub/low Joe I 19:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done, start/low Jacksinterweb (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
|
