Welcome to theassessment department of the WikiProject Latin America! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Latin America articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with theWP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
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.
3. Someone put a{{WikiProject Latin America}} 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 Latin America 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!
9. What if I have a question not listed here?
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to themain project discussion page.
An article's quality assessment is recorded using the|class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the{{WikiProject Latin America}} 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):
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;
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
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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);
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title.
Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title.
Anytemplate falls under this class. The most common types of templates includeinfoboxes andnavboxes.
Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles.
Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.
The criteria used for rating article importance arenot meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of theaverage reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greaterpopular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Latin America.
Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.
Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.
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.
