Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics

Welcome to the assessment department of the Electronics WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's electronic 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.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Electron}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Electronic articles by quality and Category:Electronic articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

FAQEdit

1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{Electron}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
2. Someone put a {{Electron}} template on an article, but it's not a Electronic related topic. 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).
3. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
4. How can I get an article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
5. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Electronics WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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.
8. What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section 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.
9. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
10. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
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 any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

InstructionsEdit

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Electron}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Electron|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):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class electronic articles)   FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class electronic articles)   A 
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class electronic articles)   GA 
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class electronic articles)   B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class electronic articles)   C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class electronic articles)   Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class electronic articles)   Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class electronic articles)   FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class electronic articles)   List 

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Book (for Wikipedia books; adds pages to Category:Book-Class electronic articles)   Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class electronic articles)   Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class electronic articles)   Disambig 
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class electronic articles)   Draft 
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class electronic articles)   File 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class electronic articles)   Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class electronic articles)   Project 
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class electronic articles)   Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class electronic articles)   NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed electronic articles)   ??? 

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance electronic articles. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scaleEdit

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
  FA  The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article 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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead or lede: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. 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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
  FL  The article has attained featured list status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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. 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 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. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
  GA  The article has attained good article status, having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article criteria:

A good article is:

  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
  B  The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical 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 the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Human
(as of April 2019)
  C  The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much 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; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.
 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. 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 usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 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. Ring-tailed cardinalfish
(as of June 2018)
  Stub  A very basic description of the topic. Can be well-written, but may also have significant content issues.
More detailed criteria
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; however, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.
 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. Crescent Falls
(as of June 2018)
  List  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. List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947
(as of June 2018)

Importance scaleEdit

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average 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 greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to collectors.

Note that the rating need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; equally well-known topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which this is the case. Thus, the rating given to topics which may seem obscure to an editor from one country—but which are well-known in another—should correspond to the higher level of notability in the second country.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Well-known to the general reader
The subject is well-known to people who are not familiar with electronics. Daily use items and products. 		Switch
Computer
High Well-known to a reader with casual electronic knowledge
The subject is known to a significant number of casual electronic savvy people. Other products and well known components. 		PCB
Mid Known or of interest to a reader with an interest in electronics
The subject is not well-known, but also not obscure to a reader with an interest in electronics. The subject is unlikely to be interesting to a non-specialist. Less known/historical component level. 		Op amp
Low Everything else
The subject is not well-known or particularly significant even to someone with a good knowledge of electronics. Laws and theories.

StatisticsEdit

Current statusEdit

Electronic articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 5 3 8
  GA 6 8 16 11 41
B 12 46 63 33 21 175
C 17 103 227 247 157 751
Start 2 14 279 750 668 1,713
Stub 3 67 444 5 474 993
List 5 3 14 43 65 130
Book 1 1
Category 357 357
Disambig 12 12
File 22 22
Portal 15 15
Project 6 6
Template 1 1 79 81
NA 4 136 140
Other 21 21
Assessed 36 175 664 1,541 654 1,396 4,466
Unassessed 39 39
Total 36 175 664 1,541 654 1,435 4,505
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 18,134 Ω = 4.93


LogEdit

April 16, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

April 15, 2021Edit

AssessedEdit

April 14, 2021Edit

AssessedEdit

April 13, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

AssessedEdit

  • Efuse (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

April 12, 2021Edit

RemovedEdit

April 11, 2021Edit

AssessedEdit


Requests for assessmentEdit

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.

Remains C class. Articles with tags cannot be B class. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Please assess Field-programmable gate array (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for importance and quality. The importance is rated as "mid" even though it forms the basis of most digital hardware design testing today and is growing in importance in industry. I don't have a strong opinion on the quality rating, but the importance should probably be upped. --Daviddwd (talk) 05:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Remains C class. Articles with tags cannot be B class. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
At some point (presumably after this request was made) this was promoted to C class with High importance. That looks reasonable. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I have promoted this to C class based on comprehensive content. It needs more references to go higher and I have tagged this. Importance rating in Low below Adder (electronics) which is rated Mid. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Electronics/Assessment&oldid=971342991"