Welcome to theassessment department of theEdinburgh WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia'sEdinburgh 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.Category:Edinburgh articles by quality serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WP Edinburgh}} project banner. Filling in a rating in the class parameter of the {{WP Edinburgh}} template on the talk page of an article causes the name of that article to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories ofCategory:Edinburgh articles by quality.
To assess article relating to Edinburgh, the template {{WP Edinburgh}} has to be placed on the talk page of an article, if it is not already there. You should try to fill in the "class" and the "importance" parameters. This is what the template looks like.
 | EdinburghUnassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
When writing the template, you should type in the following:
{{WP Edinburgh|class=|importance=}}
After both of the "equals" signs you should enter one of the codes below.
One of the following codes should be entered into the class parameter, depending on how good the article is. This will automatically add the page into the corresponding category.
| 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.
| 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) |
| 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:
| 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) |
 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. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) |
 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:
| 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) |
| 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
| 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) |
| 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:
| 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) |
| 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. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
| 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 |
For articles which do not fit into any of these categories, there are other options.
The template should now look like this (presuming it is "start class"): {{WPEdinburgh|class=Start|importance=}}
EdinburghStart‑class
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Edinburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofEdinburgh on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.EdinburghWikipedia:WikiProject EdinburghTemplate:WikiProject EdinburghEdinburgh Start This article has been rated asStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on theproject's importance scale.
In the "importance" parameter there are four different values that may be entered. They are shown below in a table, which also indicates what value to use and when to use it.
| Status | Template | Meaning of Status |
|---|---|---|
| Top | {{Top-Class}} | This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information in a key area. |
| High | {{High-Class}} | This article is important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge, or it covers a specific topic which has wide significance. |
| Mid | {{Mid-Class}} | This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. |
| Low | {{Low-Class}} | This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a specific area of knowledge and/ is needed for completeness. |
The template should now look like this (presuming it is "mid-class"): {{WP Edinburgh|class=Start|importance=Mid}}
| EdinburghStart‑classMid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
There are different parameters you can add into the template to make it more suitable for the article. They are listed below:
This is how you can enter them into the template and what they look like.
{{WP Edinburgh|class=Start|importance=Mid|attention=yes|needs-infobox=yes|needs-photo=yes|audio-file=yes}}
| EdinburghStart‑classMid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
If you desire an article to be re-assessed, you can list it here. If you assess an article please remove it so other editors do not waste their time by re-assessing it. Thank you.
| Edinburgh articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
| FA | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
| GA | 3 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 13 | ||
| B | 11 | 16 | 6 | 42 | 1 | 76 | |
| C | 11 | 28 | 30 | 181 | 1 | 251 | |
| Start | 1 | 111 | 65 | 522 | 6 | 705 | |
| Stub | 38 | 37 | 292 | 2 | 369 | ||
| List | 4 | 5 | 56 | 65 | |||
| Project | 3 | 3 | |||||
| NA | 4 | 1 | 7 | 362 | 374 | ||
| Assessed | 26 | 204 | 149 | 1,104 | 365 | 10 | 1,858 |
| Unassessed | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Total | 26 | 204 | 149 | 1,106 | 365 | 10 | 1,860 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω =6,998 | Ω = 4.94 | |||||