Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing
Shortcut:WP:COMP/A
Assessment links

Welcome to theassessment department ofWikiProject Computing. This project aims to assess articles under the scope of WikiProject Computing and help improving Wikipedia.

Assessment requests

[edit]

If you have encountered an article that you believe has been sufficiently improved, please list it here and, if possible, a reviewer will reassess the article and leave comments.

Quality assessment procedures

[edit]

Open requests

[edit]

Some articles are of interest for both this project andWikiProject Computer Security. While assessing, please update both projects Quality and Importance, if you can.

  1. Tapas (website) (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) — requested byHenryCrun15 (talk ·contribs) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC) B class. Sorry for the delay. ~Kvng (talk)17:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prestel (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views) — requested byProtalina (talk ·contribs)Protalina (talk) 12:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC) B class. May even qualify as agood article though that's a separate assessment. ~Kvng (talk)17:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Transcluded requests
[edit]

The following list is transcluded fromWikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security/Assessment#Open requests of the related projectWikipedia:WikiProject Computer Security, that recently has created theAssessment department.

You can join that department, if you like,here.

Please, review them and update the transcluded page accordingly.



Recent assessment changes

[edit]

How to assess an article

[edit]

Anyone can assess a listed article.

  • Study thequality guidelines. Carefully determine which class applies.
  • Leave comments about your assessment on the talk page.
  • Edit theclass= parameter on each relevant project banner.
  • Edit this page to remove the request.
  • Include in the edit summary e.g.:
    Assessed [[ArticleName]], changed from Start-class to C-class

Quality

[edit]

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
ClassCriteriaReader's experienceEditing suggestionsExample
 FAThe article has attainedfeatured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets thefeatured article criteria:

Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting thepolicies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims areverifiable against high-qualityreliable sources and are supported by inline citationswhere appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents viewsfairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoingedit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant withWikipedia's copyright policy and free ofplagiarism ortoo-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows thestyle guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a conciselead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchicalsection headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—seeciting sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It hasimages and other media, where appropriate, with succinctcaptions andacceptable copyright status. Images follow theimage use policy.Non-free images or media must satisfy thecriteria for inclusion of non-free content andbe labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and usessummary style where appropriate.
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.Microsoft
OpenBSD
Storm botnet
 FLThe article has attainedfeatured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets thefeatured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaginglead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful,section headings andtable sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with theManual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoingedit 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.List of convicted computer criminals
List of acquisitions by Cisco Systems
 AThe article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets theA-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described inWikipedia:Article development. 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 afeatured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g.WikiProject Military history).
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving.WP:Peer review may help.USB
(as of February 2018)
 GAThe article meetsall of thegood article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers fromWP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
Agood article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation.
  2. Verifiable withno original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it containsno original research; and
    4. it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses themain aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio:
    1. media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content; and
    2. media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable captions.
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existingfeatured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.Alan Turing
Epiphany
MacBook
Python
BThe article meetsall of theB-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reachgood article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article issuitably referenced, withinline citations. It hasreliable sources, and any important or controversial material which islikely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of<ref> tags andcitation templates such as{{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for anA-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including alead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to beof the standard of featured articles. TheManual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, aninfobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in anappropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background andtechnical 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. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with theManual of Style and relatedstyle guidelines.Endianness
CThe article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantialcleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
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 solvecleanup problems.Byte
(as of February 2018)
StartAn article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A 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
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.Providing references toreliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.File deletion
(as of September 2017)
StubA very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant..dj
(as of February 2013)
ListMeets the criteria of astand-alone list orset index article, 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 Java keywords
List of computer viruses

Importance

[edit]

WikiProject article importance scheme
ImportanceCriteriaExample
 Top Essential technology, protocols, operating systems, programming languages, important websites, major companies and people, or anything forming the basis of all informationInternet,Computer network,Cisco
 High Popular applications, protocols, architectures, or anything that covers a general area of knowledgeASCII,Firewall (computing)
 Mid Core operating system or networking components, or anything that fills in more specific information in certain areasBroadband,Ethernet physical layer
 Low Optional add-ons that are not particularly important, or anything that is an obscure piece of triviaAutonegotiation,Gibson MaGIC,OmniPeek

Quality statistics

[edit]

The statistics below are from the last time the assessment tool scanned the WikiProject Computing articles. To see the latest results, havethe assessment tool update the data, then reload this page.


Computing articles by quality and importance
QualityImportance
TopHighMidLowNA???Total
FA11349
FL2911
FM2828
GA316451541219
B46202357863121,480
C775351,4524,8381,9608,862
Start92681,27710,96118,10520,621
Stub131775,52617,10212,819
List2241331,36261,527
Category6,4246,424
Disambig136136
File3,1453,145
Portal122122
Project155155
Redirect224839055,1946,208
Template1,9301,930
NA9393
Other1101,0081,019
Draft1919
Assessed1401,0833,53024,63218,25617,18664,827
Unassessed362,6732,682
Total1401,0833,53324,63818,25619,85967,509
WikiWork factors (?)ω =220,341Ω = 5.01


Project participants interested in assessment

[edit]
  1. -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) -15:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phillip A (talk)
  3. SOL Basic00:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Logical Premise Ergo?13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Message From Xenu (talk ·contribs)
  6. Josemanimala (talk ·contribs)
  7. Some Old Man (talk)11:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. C21Ktalk14:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daydreamer302000 (talk ·contribs)14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. decltype (talk ·contribs)11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. AndyChatc22:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Michaelkourlas (talk)22:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Airplaneman (talk ·contribs) 7:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  14. --Eraserhead1 <talk>14:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. § Music Sorter § (talk)06:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Kvng (talk ·contribs) --Kvng (talk)21:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Nullw0rm(Talk? -Contribs?)18:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Dexp (talk)13:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Pastore Italy (talk)17:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Pnm (talk)18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Jamesrules90 (talk)17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ebraminiotalk17:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Enfcer (talk)00:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ankit Maity (talk)06:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Ourhistory153 (talk)14:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Cloud_computing[reply]
  26. Bardi1100 (talk)
  27. Diego (talk)09:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Trevj (talk)10:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Simon Bramfitttalk
  30. Enrique Villar13:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (St. Paul's Fall)[reply]
  31. Seba5tien (talk/contribs)08:10, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  32. MBlairMartin (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2016
  33. Jamesp88 (talk |contribs)17:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  34. OvalCheese (talk)00:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. ClockworkSoul17:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Gluonztalkcontribs21:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computing/Assessment&oldid=1329974076"
Categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp