Welcome to theassessment department ofWikiProject Song Contests! This department focuses on assessing the quality and importance of Wikipedia's song contest-related articles. Ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the{{WikiProject Song Contests}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories.
The assessment system used by WikiProject Song Contests to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assesslists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.
The first stage of an article's evolution is called astub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list, so this assessment level is shared between the two scales.
A stub that undergoes some development will progress to the next stage of article evolution. An article at this stage provides some meaningful content, but is typically incomplete and lacks adequate references, structure, and supporting materials. At this stage, it becomes possible to distinguish between prose articles and lists; depending on its form, an article at this level will be assessed as aStart-Class prose article or aList-Class list.
As the article continues to develop, it will reach theC-Class level. At this stage, the article is reasonably structured and contains substantial content and supporting materials, but may still be incomplete or poorly referenced. As articles progress to this stage, the assessment process begins to take on a more structured form, and specific criteria are introduced against which articles are rated.
An article that reaches theB-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopaedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it may not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. Articles at this stage commonly undergopeer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing aformal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors.
After reaching the B-Class level, an article may be submitted for assessment as agood article. Good articles must meet a set ofcriteria similar to those required for the B-Class assessment level, and must additionally undergo theformal good article review process. This assessment level is available only for prose articles; no comparable level exists for lists.
Thefeatured article andfeatured list ratings represent the pinnacle of article evolution and the best that Wikipedia has to offer; an article at this level is professional, outstanding, and represents a definitive source for encyclopaedic information. Featured status is assigned only through a thoroughindependent review process; this process can be gruelling for the unprepared, and editors are highly advised to submit articles forpeer review prior to nominating them for featured status.
Quality ratings are intended to assess the quality of an article by using thestandard assessment scale. An article's quality rating is independent of itsimportance rating.
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.
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);
The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reachGood Article standards. B-Class articles should meet thesix B-Class criteria:
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 is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantialcleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such asbias ortrivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from anin-universe perspective.
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly non-encyclopaedic, andMoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such asnotability andBLP, and provideenough sources to establishverifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of beingspeedily deleted.
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.
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.
Meets the criteria of astand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.
The individual review process is used for all assessment activities up to the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.
Article authors are free to assess their own articles under this process. However, by convention, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at theassessment request page.
The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.
By convention, WikiProject Song Contests articles are typically listed in thehistory section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.
Thegood article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets thegood article criteria.
Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.
Thefeatured article candidacy andfeatured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets thefeatured article or list criteria.
Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.
Find an article related tothis project, and tag it if necessary.
Read the article and analyse it.
Place your assessment in the{{WikiProject Song Contests}} banner on the articles talk page (according to the scales below).
Unless the reasoning for an assessment is self-evident, such as assessing a very short article as Stub-class and Low-importance, please consider placing a summary of your assessment on the article's talk page. This should include a rationale for your choice of ratings, and possibly suggestions for future contributors on how to improve the article's quality rating. If the assessment is likely to be controversial you may wish to leave a note about it on themain project talk page.
For events that have yet to take place, but still require content being added with information of the progress in the run-up to the event itself, add "future=y" to the banner to ensure relevant future articles are flagged.
{{WikiProject Song Contests|importance=???|future=?}}
All non-articles including categories, disambiguation pages, files, portals, project pages, redirects, and templates will automatically be categorized appropriately by simply adding{{WikiProject Song Contests}} to the talk page. For redirects, please include the importance parameter (detailed in the next section), as this assists in categorising redirects.
Importance ratings are intended to assess the importance of an article to the project, and this guide acts as a general standard by which to measure WikiProject Song Contests articles. An importance rating is independent of thequality rating and the importance of an article to WikiProject Song Contests may be different to that of other projects.
...biographical articles on artists which competed in an event covered by the project, including:
...biographical articles on individuals who competed in an event covered by the project as part of awinning band or group
Some subjects which should not be rated are listed below. This includes topics which had previously been important to WikiProject Eurovision before the rescoping, but which are now considered deprecated to WikiProject Song Contests:
Broadcasters which participate in/organise an event
Contest venues
Biographical articles for people who did not compete in an event, e.g.:
individuals related to a contest entry but which did not perform as a main artist, e.g. band/group members of non-winning acts, backing singers, songwriters, conductors, choreographers, creative directors
contest presenters
production staff
television and radio commentators
other performers (singers/dancers etc.) that were involved in performances outside of a contest's participating entries (e.g. opening/interval acts)
Articles for events which do not fall under the definition of a "song contest", including:
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritise work on these articles. It is also utilised 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 Song Contests}} 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 Song Contests 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. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to?
For the most part, yes in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be madehere). However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.
6. 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.
7. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
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.
9. Where can I get more comments about an article?
Thepeer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
10. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in theassessment scale.
11. 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!
12. 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, or contact theproject coordinators directly.
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 assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Old and fulfilled requests are periodically removed from the list.
Please note:
Only a small group of editors watch this list, and as a result, response times to assessment requests can vary from instant to over a week.
If you aim for an article to be promoted to GA or FA class, please consider requesting apeer review as well, so the article can be exposed to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors.
Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:
The current status ofCategory:Unassessed Song Contests articles = 0 articles unassessed. After articles have been assessed, they are automatically removed from this category.
