Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland
Poland articles by quality and importance
QualityImportance
TopHighMidLowNA???Total
FA428923
FL1157
FM5454
A11518
GA16395985199
B3850170441222921
C601465211,6705662,963
Start371631,3069,16812,57513,250
Stub11856766,43237,06874,089
List110717562183701,426
Category13,57913,579
Disambig193193
File273273
Portal1818
Project2020
Redirect37503987211,179
Template3,6673,667
NA112
Other36467
Assessed1614372,75878,96918,81210,801111,938
Unassessed111360372
Total1614372,75978,98018,81211,161112,310
WikiWork factors (?)ω =525,837Ω = 5.75

Welcome to theassessment department of the Poland WikiProject!

The goal of this department is to accurately rate the quality and relative importance of Poland-related articles on Wikipedia. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. The ratings are modeled after theWP:1.0 program guidelines and are expected to play a role in it.

The assessment is done by entering relevant parameters in the{{WikiProject Poland}}, the project banner; this causes the articles to be automatically placed in the appropriate sub-categories ofCategory:Poland articles by quality andCategory:Poland articles by importance.

FAQ

[edit]
1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add{{WikiProject Poland}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else. However, we would certainly appreciate if you could rate the article according to the guidelines below and leave a short summary of your rationale on the talk page. This is as easy as using {{WikiProject Poland|class=|importance=}} and filling the class and importance parameters with the keywords discussed below.
2. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles we are interested in and helps to prioritize work. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for theinternal use of the project, and donot imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
3. How can I get an article rated?
For B-class assessments, post your request atWikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Reviews and copy it toWT:POLAND; for others, just post to WT:POLAND.
4. Who can assess articles?
Any Wikipedian, who has familiarized themself with the guidelines below, is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
5. 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.
6. What if I don't agree with a rating?
Post atWT:POLAND, and someone will take a look at it.
7. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are subjective, especially concerning importance. However, it's the best system we've been able to devise. And it works pretty well for many different WikiProjects. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
8. What if I have a question not listed here?
Ask questions onthe talk page.
9. Why bother with assessment?
Assessed pages are fed to our automated tools such asarticle alerts and news, and generate useful stats such asWikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages. They also tell us which articles need extra attention.
10. How do I do a B-class review?
To assess an article to B-class or above, we have a somewhat more standardized protocol. SeeCategory:Poland articles with an incomplete B-Class checklist for a list of articles to be assessed to B-class andB-Class criteria for what we are looking for. Then post a short commentary on article's talk page on whether it has passed or not, note it was a review for our project, and update the B-class checklist (which is quite easy, and the instructions are present in each assessment template - click show to the right of the "This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status" line). It is quite easy, seean example.
11. How do I request a B-class review?
Post your request atWikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Reviews and copy it toWT:POLAND
12. How do I do or request an A-class review?
Our project currently does not support a dedicated A-class review, so A-class rating is not given by our project, unless it is just to confirm that we agree with an A-class review done by another project (seeA-Class criteria). We would like to start doing A-class reviews, but for that we need more activity and interest (if you'd like to see us do those reviews, post atWT:POLAND!).

Instructions

[edit]

Quality

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the|class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the{{WikiProject Poland}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (seeWikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA(forfeatured articlesonly; adds them to theFA-Class Poland articles category) FA
FL(forfeatured listsonly; adds them to theFL-Class Poland articles category) FL
A(for articles that passed a formalpeer reviewonly; adds them to theA-Class Poland articles category) A
GA(forgood articlesonly; adds them to theGA-Class Poland articles category) GA
B(for articles that satisfy all of theB-Class criteria; adds them to theB-Class Poland articles category)B
C(for substantial articles; adds them to theC-Class Poland articles category)C
Start(for developing articles; adds them to theStart-Class Poland articles category)Start
Stub(for basic articles; adds them to theStub-Class Poland articles category)Stub
List(forstand-alone lists; adds them to theList-Class Poland articles category)List
NA(for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to theNA-Class Poland pages category)NA
???(articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in theUnassessed Poland articles category)???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

FM(forfeatured mediaonly; adds them to theFM-Class Poland pages category) FM
Category(forcategories; adds them to theCategory-Class Poland pages category)Category
Draft(fordrafts; adds them to theDraft-Class Poland pages category)Draft
File(forfiles andtimed text; adds them to theFile-Class Poland pages category)File
Portal(forportal pages; adds them to thePortal-Class Poland pages category)Portal
Project(forproject pages; adds them to theProject-Class Poland pages category)Project
Template(fortemplates andmodules; adds them to theTemplate-Class Poland pages category)Template

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

Disambig(fordisambiguation pages; adds them to theDisambig-Class Poland pages category)Disambig
Redirect(forredirect pages; adds them to theRedirect-Class Poland pages category)Redirect

Importance

[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from theimportance parameter in the{{WikiProject Poland}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Poland|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for theimportance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (seeWikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles toCategory:Top-importance Poland articles) Top 
High (adds articles toCategory:High-importance Poland articles) High 
Mid (adds articles toCategory:Mid-importance Poland articles) Mid 
Low (adds articles toCategory:Low-importance Poland articles) Low 
NA (adds articles toCategory:NA-importance Poland articles) NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed inCategory:Unknown-importance Poland articles) ??? 

Quality scale

[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.Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 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.Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 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.Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
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.Psychology
(as of January 2024)
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.Wing
(as of June 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.Ball
(as of September 2014)
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.Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
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 literary movements

Importance scale

[edit]

We recognize that importance is a relative term. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another. Any importance ratings applied by this project, only reflect the perceived importance to this project. The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather it should serve as a guideline for project participants to determine which article should receive more attention.

WikiProject article importance scheme
ImportanceCriteriaExample
 Top Definition: Subject is a must-have for aconcise print encyclopedia or other reference work on Poland. High probability that non-Poles would look this up.
Practical tip: these subjects just pop into your head when you think about Poland and a specific field
Economy of Poland,Lech Wałęsa,Kraków
 High Definition: Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the encyclopedia. Is reasonably expected to be included into more comprehensive printed encyclopedia.History of Solidarity,Armia Krajowa,Katowice
 Mid Definition: Subject is notable on a national level within Poland without necessarily being well-known internationally, including smaller towns; and any particular place or area closely related.Corpus Christi Basilica
 Low Definition: Subject mostly of local interest; peripheral within its own field of study, not particularly notable or significant. It may cover specific part of a notable article also.Osiedle Witosa
 NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.Category:Poland
 ??? Subject importance has not yet been assessed.Portal:Poland/New article announcements
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Poland/Assessment&oldid=987655469"

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp