Welcome to the assessment department of the Egypt WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Egypt related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP: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.
Any member of the Egypt WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
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.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the requesting an assessment section below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are, 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!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Egypt}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Egypt|class=???}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies 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 are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
a lead: a concise lead 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 hierarchical section headings; and
consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing 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 uses summary style.
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 engaging lead 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 for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-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 and table sort facilities.
Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit 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.
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 the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia: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 a featured 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.
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equaling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.
Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.
The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good 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 an A-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 a lead 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 it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox 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 the Manual of Style and related style 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 substantial cleanup.
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 solve cleanup 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 to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
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 a stand-alone list, 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.
Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes.
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.
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Egypt}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Egypt|importance=???}}
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):
The article is one of the core topics about Egypt. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Egypt article.
A reader who is not involved in the Egypt field will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily.
Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages.
The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of Egypt.
Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject.
Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand Egypt. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in the history of Egypt will be rated in this level.
The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Egypt.
Few readers outside the Egypt field or that are not Egypt students may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article.
Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of the Egypt, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most infrastructure of Egypt.
Assess Talent Management - Egypt's No. 1 Personality Assessment, Ability Assessment and Psychometric Testing Software Company and the smartest choice for HR and OD Managers in the Middle East.
Education in Egypt and reform by community leaders and educators. I have added external links and reference as evidence of notability ..Please note the corruption in the past regime that was suppressing reform attempts specially by community leaders and scarcity of information and research on the topic.. please check.. thank you
I have developed this article from a small stub. I think it deserves a new assessment. Thank you.
The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi.
Please take a look at my article "niqab in Egypt" I have made a lot of changes and it is nominated for good article status and would love your feedback.
Noosaelgamoosa (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)noosaelgamoosaReply[reply]
I have developed this article from a small stub. I think it deserves a new assessment. Thank you.
MontyofEgypt 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have developed this article from a small stub. I think it deserves a new assessment. Thank you.
The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have developed this article from a small stub. I think it deserves a new assessment. Thank you.
The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have developed this article from a small stub. I think it deserves a new assessment. Thank you.
The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Operation Badr (1973) - complete re-write of the article after moving it (previously called: The Crossing); you can see the difference between the present article and the old one here. With a proper ending I think this article can reach GA-class. Sherif9282 (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Generally our assessment is for a maximum of B-class. Please do a peer review before nominating for GAReply[reply]
You have multiple grammar and spelling problems:
In general numbers from one to ten should be spelled out. This can be seen in "October 7" and other such spellings
Plot:
"Operation Badr was the code name for the Egyptian military operation (October 6, 1973) to cross the Suez Canal and seize the Bar-Lev Line at the start of the Yom Kippur War." should be "Operation Badr was the code name for the Egyptian military operation to cross the Suez Canal and seize the Bar-Lev Line on October 6, 1973 starting the Yom Kippur War."
"It is also known in as The Crossing (العبور)" should be "It is also known in Egypt as The Crossing (العبور)"
"Combat engineers constructed bridges and this allowed reinforcements to cross." should be "Combat engineers constructed bridges, which allowed reinforcements to cross."
Prologue:
A map of the occupied territory after the six day war would be useful
Strategies for War
"Egypt rejected the plan because Israeli forces the war would be carried out essentially on one front" between "forces" and "war" there is something missing
Please read through the article one more time to check for other grammar errors. You could use http://www.spellchecker.net/spellcheck/ which sometimes is right and sometimes wrong.
References:
References like "A Critical Review of the 1973 Arab-Israeli War" and "AT-3 SAGGER Anti-Tank Guided Missile" should all have publisher, date, author and accessdate
Use {{cite web}} when citing a website with the paramters |publisher= |date= |accessdate= and |author= filled in. Read the documentation of the template to understand this more.
External links
Please add some general information external links to read about the event.
Ask for a peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review to get a review of more then one user.
Done most of your recommendations (but I will keep the dates as they are). I will add external links soon. What do you think now? Sherif9282 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please say which time you're using throughout the article. (Local time (Egypt, Israel) or UTC time). If u use local time of Egypt then state it and add the UTC time in brackets. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I corrected a few refs that I spotted myself. I don't suppose there are any more mistakes. Note: I assumed it was Cairo Local Time (since Shazly and Gamasy give the time, and they are Egyptians), but I will check it soon. Anything else with the article? --Sherif9282 (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tamara Siuda -- Significant changes have been made in the past month or so, including layout, content, and the addition of a variety of references. Was rated "Start", I believe now to be "GA". IanCheesman (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need to add citation templates {{cite web}} and there are some missing citations.
Kemetic Orthodoxy -- Complete re-write took place over the past few months, including layout, content, and references. Article is now more than four times the original size, and layout is largely based on that of other religion pages. Was rated "Start", I believe now to be "GA". IanCheesman (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's better but:
You need to add citation templates {{cite web}} and there are some missing citations
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.
