Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<Wikipedia:WikiProject YouTube
WikiProject YouTube
Project Pages
Help The Project
Project Templates
Wikipedia Templates
Ads
Tools
changes


Theassessment department ofWikiProject YouTube focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's YouTube 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 theVersion 1.0 Editorial Team program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the{{WikiProject YouTube}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories ofCategory:YouTube articles by quality andCategory:YouTube articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. (Index ·Statistics ·Log)

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
See also thegeneral assessment FAQ

Bx Dyson ixyiimrtm Choisy-le-Roi i Odi

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 theWikipedia 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{{WikiProject YouTube}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a{{WikiProject YouTube}} 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 project talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the YouTube 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 thequality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow theinstructions 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 theassessment scale.
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.
7. What if I don't agree with a rating?
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 theassessment scale.
8. 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!

Instructions

[edit]

Quality assessment

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the|class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the{{WikiProject YouTube}} 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 YouTube articles category) FA
FL(forfeatured listsonly; adds them to theFL-Class YouTube articles category) FL
A(for articles that passed a formalpeer reviewonly; adds them to theA-Class YouTube articles category) A
GA(forgood articlesonly; adds them to theGA-Class YouTube articles category) GA
B(for articles that satisfy all of theB-Class criteria; adds them to theB-Class YouTube articles category)B
C(for substantial articles; adds them to theC-Class YouTube articles category)C
Start(for developing articles; adds them to theStart-Class YouTube articles category)Start
Stub(for basic articles; adds them to theStub-Class YouTube articles category)Stub
List(forstand-alone lists; adds them to theList-Class YouTube articles category)List
NA(for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to theNA-Class YouTube pages category)NA
???(articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in theUnassessed YouTube articles category)???

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

Category(forcategories; adds them to theCategory-Class YouTube pages category)Category
Draft(fordrafts; adds them to theDraft-Class YouTube pages category)Draft
File(forfiles andtimed text; adds them to theFile-Class YouTube pages category)File
Portal(forportal pages; adds them to thePortal-Class YouTube pages category)Portal
Project(forproject pages; adds them to theProject-Class YouTube pages category)Project
Template(fortemplates andmodules; adds them to theTemplate-Class YouTube 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 YouTube pages category)Disambig
Redirect(forredirect pages; adds them to theRedirect-Class YouTube pages category)Redirect

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.N/A
 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.N/A
 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.N/A
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.N/A
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.N/A
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.N/A
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.N/A
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.N/A

Importance assessment

[edit]

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

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

Importance scale

[edit]
WikiProject article importance scheme
ImportanceCriteriaExample
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.Kindergarten
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.Factory Acts
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.0.999...
 Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.G cell
 NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.Category:Palms
 ??? Subject importance has not yet been assessed.???
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Assessment&oldid=1250517180"
Categories:
Hidden category:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp