Oregon Portal Collaboration	About Us Maintenance Participants Member activity DYKs Awards
Main Talk	Recent Talk Recent Changes Non-Article	Subprojects Assessment Featured Content Popular Articles Templates & Infoboxes Reference Desk

Welcome to theassessment page of theWikiProject Oregon, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia'sOregon-related 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 theWP:1.0 programme.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the{{WikiProject Oregon}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories ofCategory:Oregon articles by quality andCategory:Oregon articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for anautomatically generated worklist.

See also thegeneral assessment FAQ.

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 Oregon}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a{{WikiProject Oregon}} 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 talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).

4. Who can assess articles?

Any member of WikiProject Oregon 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.

6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?

Of course; to do so, please list it in thesection for assessment requests below.

7. 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. Where can I get more comments about an article?

People atWikipedia:Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there, or ask for comments on themain project discussion page.

9. What if I don't agree with a rating?

You can list it in thesection 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.

10. 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!

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 this department; for any other issues, you can go to themain project discussion page.

An article's assessment is generated from theclass parameter in the{{WikiProject Oregon}} project banner on its talk page (see thetemplate page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Oregon | class=??? | importance=??? }}

The following values for theclass parameter may be used:

• FA (adds articles toCategory:FA-Class Oregon articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured articles)
• FL (adds articles toCategory:FL-Class Oregon articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured lists)
• A (adds articles toCategory:A-Class Oregon articles; should only be used for articles that have made considerable progress upon the GA version, an article that is undergoing FA review would be A-class)
• GA (adds articles toCategory:GA-Class Oregon articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as good articles)
• B (adds articles toCategory:B-Class Oregon articles)
• C (adds articles toCategory:C-Class Oregon articles)
• Start (adds articles toCategory:Start-Class Oregon articles)
• Stub (adds articles toCategory:Stub-Class Oregon articles)
• List (for articles which consist primarily of a list; adds pages toCategory:List-Class Oregon articles)
• Dab (adds pages which aredisambiguation pages toCategory:Disambig-Class Oregon articles)

These classes no longer need to be explicitly specified to the template. They are deduced by thenamespace of the page the template is placed upon.

• Portal (pages inCategory:Portal-Class Oregon articles)
• Category (categories inCategory:Category-Class Oregon articles)
• Image orFile (media inCategory:File-Class Oregon articles)

The following values for theimportance parameter may be used:

• Top (adds articles toCategory:Top-importance Oregon articles)
• High (adds articles toCategory:High-importance Oregon articles)
• Mid (adds articles toCategory:Mid-importance Oregon articles)
• Low (adds articles toCategory:Low-importance Oregon articles)
• NA (for none articles, do not need importance rating for non-articles)

Articles for which a class is not provided are listed inCategory:Unassessed Oregon articles and articles for which an importance is not provided are listed inCategory:Unknown-importance Oregon articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

If one of the values are mistyped or otherwise invalid, bright red text is displayed on the page and placed incategory:Oregon articles needing attention.

The quality "class" an article receives should follow Wikipedia's regular guidelines for quality found below.

Articles which have not been formally evaluated, or which have failed agood article review, should not be assigned a quality rating higher than B class. Above that an article needs to go through a formal review process.

• SeeWikipedia:Good article candidates
• SeeWikipedia:Featured article review
• SeeCategory:Wikipedia editorial validation

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The 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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents viewsfairly and without bias; 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 compliant withWikipedia's copyright policy and free ofplagiarism ortoo-close paraphrasing. It follows thestyle guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a conciselead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchicalsection headings; and 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. 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. 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.	Exploding whale As of 05-19-2007
FL	The 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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaginglead 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) statements aresourced where they appear, and they provideinline citations if they contain any of thefour kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements forstand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate thecontent-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful,section headings andtable sort facilities. Style. It complies with theManual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a)Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting,tables, andcolour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b)Media files. It hasimages and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia'susage policies, with succinctcaptions.Non-free images and other media satisfy thecriteria for the inclusion of non-free content andare labeled accordingly. (c)Accessibility. Ituses proper formating to beaccessible to all readers.Bulleted and unbulleted lists andtables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilizealternative (alt) text. 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 tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon As of 03-13-2008
A	The 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.	Oregon State Capitol As of 08-06-2007
GA	The 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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation. Verifiable withno original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline; 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); it containsno original research; and it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses themain aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio: media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content; and 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.	Oregon Supreme Court As of 05-16-2007
B	The 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.	Oregon As of 05-19-2007
C	The 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)
Start	An 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.	Wallace P. Carson, Jr. As of 05-19-2007
Stub	A 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.	Oregon Spectator As of 05-19-2007
List	Meets 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

This is only for assessment of articles that fall within theOregon WikiProject.

For determining theImportance rating (Low, Mid, High, Top) please keep the following in mind:

• Keep a historical perspective.
• Keep a geographical perspective.
• Every item in the Project is already important and notable, otherwise it would not be on Wikipedia.

• Approximate breakdown of the percentage of articles in each category as a goal.
  • Low=80%
  • Mid=15%
  • High=5%
  • Top=1%

• Actual breakdown excluding n/a items:

In late October 2015,YBG converted the below rules into the table below. I'm not sure which form is better.

Anything that meetsWP:Notability and is related to Oregon merits at least a Low rating. These tables give criteria for Mid, High and Top ratings.

FromWikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Oregon articles by quality statistics

Oregon articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	4	6	9	31			50
FL		1	1	9			11
FM					13		13
GA	9	22	50	239			320
B	27	54	199	574			854
C	43	124	388	1,670			2,225
Start	23	181	1,092	6,569		1	7,866
Stub		6	284	7,187			7,477
List		4	30	319			353
Category					5,509		5,509
Disambig					93		93
File					392		392
Portal					591		591
Project					112		112
Redirect					1,272		1,272
Template					603		603
NA					2		2
Other				1	37		38
Assessed	106	398	2,053	16,599	8,624	1	27,781
Unassessed				2		2	4
Total	106	398	2,053	16,601	8,624	3	27,785
WikiWork factors (?)		ω =96,268			Ω = 5.13

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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please useWikipedia:Peer review instead.

• China Ditch - opinion on B-class

If you feel that an article meets the criteria listed above for A Class status, please list it below. A minimum of two uninvolved editors will review the article based on the A Class criteria (see chart above) and determine if the article passes or fails. In the event of a tie, the article will not be promoted to A Class. Reviewers will use theGA quick fail criteria as a screening process. Caution: this process may take several weeks.

• Add A Class requests below

• Reviewers: After selecting an article, remove it from the above list and place it on the A class assessment page at:Under Review.

WikiProject Oregon no longer uses the level classification for articles.

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is availablehere.

• WikiProject Oregon
• WikiProject assessments