Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment

HomeTalkAlertsAssessmentQuality
Articles
Formatting
& Guidance
NewsdeskMembersEurovision
Cup

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Eurovision! This department focuses on assessing the quality and importance of Wikipedia's Eurovision articles. Ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories.

OverviewEdit

IntroductionEdit

The assessment system used by WikiProject Eurovision 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 assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.

Prose article List article
Stub The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. 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.
Arrow southwest.svg
Arrow south.svg
Arrow southeast.svg
Start Future List 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 a Start-Class prose article or a List-Class list. Articles with Future-class are 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.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow southwest.svg
Arrow south.svg
C As the article continues to develop, it will reach the C-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.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
B An article that reaches the B-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 undergo peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing a formal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
GA After reaching the B-Class level, an article may be submitted for assessment as a good article. Good articles must meet a set of criteria similar to those required for the B-Class assessment level, and must additionally undergo the formal good article review process. This assessment level is available only for prose articles; no comparable level exists for lists.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
A A good or B-Class article that has undergone additional improvement may be considered for the A-Class assessment level. An A-Class article presents a complete and thorough encyclopaedic treatment of a subject, such as might be written by an expert in the field; the only deficiencies permissible at this level are minor issues of style or language. To receive an A-Class rating, a candidate article must undergo the formal Eurovision A-Class review process. The A-Class rating is the highest assessment level that may be assigned by an individual WikiProject; higher assessment levels are granted only by Wikipedia-wide independent assessment processes.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
FA FL The featured article and featured 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 thorough independent review process; this process can be gruelling for the unprepared, and editors are highly advised to submit articles for A-Class review prior to nominating them for featured status.

CriteriaEdit

Quality ratings are intended to assess the quality of an article by using the standard assessment scale. An article's quality rating is independent of its importance rating.

Assessment criteria for prose articles
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
FA
The article has obtained Featured article status.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet 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: 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.
Featured article candidacy Margaret (singer)
(as of February 2018)
A
The article is well organised and is essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere, as described here.
More detailed criteria

 A

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).

A-Class review Eurovision Song Contest 2012
(as of November 2014)
GA
The article has obtained Good article status.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet 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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Good article review Eurovision Song Contest
(as of April 2021)
B
The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria:
More detailed 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.
Individual review Eurovision Song Contest 2021
(as of March 2022)
C
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 substantial cleanup.
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 as bias or trivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.
Individual review Congratulations: 50 Years of the Eurovision Song Contest
(as of February 2021)
Start
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, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
Individual review ABU Song Festivals
(as of September 2013)
Stub
A very basic description of the topic.
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, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.
Individual review OGAE Video Contest
(as of June 2013)
Future
A topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic of which no broadcast version exists so far and all information is subject to change when new information arises from reliable sources. With multiple reliable sources there might be information that contradicts other information in the same or other articles. Individual review Eurovision Song Contest 2015
(as of June 2014)
Assessment criteria for lists
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
FL
The article has obtained Featured list status.
More detailed criteria
The article must meet 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.
Featured list candidacy List of Eurovision Song Contest winners
(as of August 2011)
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. Individual review List of Eurovision Song Contest host cities
as of March 2022)

Non-articlesEdit

Non-articles such as categories, disambiguation pages, files, portals, project pages, redirects, and templates are not assessed on the quality scale. Simply adding {{WikiProject Eurovision}} to the talk page will automatically give a non-article its appropriate rating.

ProcessesEdit

This section describes the different processes used to assess the quality of Project Eurovision articles.

Individual reviewEdit

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 the assessment request page.

Peer reviewEdit

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, Project Eurovision articles are typically listed in the history section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.

Good article reviewEdit

The good 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 the good article criteria.

Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.

A-Class article/list reviewEdit

The Eurovision A-Class review process is the most thorough and demanding assessment of article quality done by WikiProject Eurovision. An article that undergoes this process must be reviewed by at least two independent examiners, each of whom must agree that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria.

Full instructions for requesting an A-Class review are provided on the A-Class review page.

Featured article/list candidacyEdit

The featured article candidacy and featured 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 the featured 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.

InstructionsEdit

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} project banner on its talk page:

  1. Find an article related to this project, and tag it if necessary.
  2. Read the article and analyse it.
  3. Place your assessment in the {{WikiProject Eurovision}} banner on the articles talk page (according to the scales below).
  4. 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 the main project talk page.
{{WikiProject Eurovision|class=???|importance=???}}

Quality scaleEdit

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:

Importance scaleEdit

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 Eurovision articles. An importance rating is independent of the quality rating and the importance of an article to WikiProject Eurovision may be different to that of other projects.

  • Low-importance: For articles that are relevant to contests covered by this project but are not a core part of the project, including...

FAQEdit

See also the general assessment FAQ and the A-Class criteria.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
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 the Wikipedia 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.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Eurovision}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Eurovision}} 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 Eurovision 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 made here), and A-Class promotion requires the consensus of multiple independent reviewers. 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 the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions 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 the assessment scale.
7. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
8. 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.
9. Where can I get more comments about an article?
The peer 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 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment 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 the main project discussion page, or contact the project coordinators directly.

Assessment requestsEdit

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, A, or FA class, please consider requesting a peer review as well, so the article can be exposed to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors.
  • The assessment request process is not intended to replace the Wikipedia:Good article nominations and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates processes.
A-class reviews

InstructionsEdit

Requesting a reviewEdit

To request the first A-Class review of an an article:

  1. WikiProject Eurovision do not have a formal WikiProject review system. Therefore we need to follow the basic method option as shown via WP:ACLASS.
  2. For WikiProjects without a formal A-Class review process, the proposal to promote to A-Class should be made on the article's talk page. To be granted, the proposal should be supported by two uninvolved editors, with no significant opposes. The review should also be noted on the project's discussion page.
  3. Upon making your request, two independent reviewers will check the nominated article to ensure that it fulfils all five of the ESC A-class criteria.
  4. Both the reviewers will either pass or fail upon completion of their review, depending on whether they feel the nominated article has fulfilled all of the criteria.
  5. If the review is a pass, then the class= on the {{EurovisionNotice}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page can be changed to class=A.
  6. If the review is a fail, then the class= on the {{EurovisionNotice}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page remains the same as it did prior to the review.

CommentingEdit

The new ESC A-Class standard is deliberately set high, very close to featured article quality. Reviewers should therefore satisfy themselves that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria before supporting a nomination. If needed, a FAQ page is available. As with featured articles, any objections must be "actionable"; that is, capable of rectification.

After A-ClassEdit

Feel free to ask reviewers to help prepare your article as a featured article candidate. We're hoping that more FAC prep will help draw some of the regular FAC reviewers to our A-class review page.

Frequently asked questions: A-Class review & criteriaEdit

Can anyone review A-Class articles? How much experience do you need?
If you're familiar with B-Class assessment, you'll find the transition to new A-Class reviewing very easy indeed. The A-Class criteria cover the same ground – A1 is a stricter version of B1, A2 is a tighter definition of comprehensive than B2 – and so forth. The key thing is that ESC A-Class should represent the project's very best work and the reviews should be approached with this in mind.
What is the difference between A-Class and Good Article?
The key difference between A-Class and GA is focus - content vs style. An A-Class article should be complete and comprehensive in terms of content, and one can forgive a few style problems; a GA-article has not necessarily had any review by a subject-expert, and so it might not be complete, but it is often held to higher standards on style issues.
A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
All material likely to be challenged by a reasonable person should be referenced, which probably translates to a density of at least one citation per paragraph. In particular, any figures (for example, voting results) and any direct quotations must be cited to a reliable source. Special arrangements apply to the lead section (see WP:LEADCITE).
A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
The article reflects all major threads of subject, reports on ever angle possible, and contains an appropriate amount of context.
A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarises the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
The combination of introduction and table of contents should present a logical overview of the article's contents, and make navigation easier for people would do not wish to read the entire article.
A4. The article is written in concise and articulate British English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
We're looking for professional standards of English, with the emphasis on brevity and clarity. We do not expect 100% MoS-compliance, that can be achieved with a technical copy-edit immediately prior to FAC. However, we do expect articles to handle linking, date formats, referencing and citation, and British English consistently. This is because the contest is held within Europe, so maintaining correct English spelling is vital.
A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images with captions, and other media, where appropriate.
This is about balance. The idea here is to ensure that articles are neither solid walls of type nor picture books. An appropriate mid-course is that a shorter article would contain at least two or three images and a longer one up to a dozen.

Add requests to the bottom of this list, please also sign your request by adding four tildes (~~~~):


Assessment backlogsEdit

Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:

StatisticsEdit

Category treeEdit

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:

LogsEdit

  • An automatically generated log of assessment activity is available here.
  • To manually update the assessment table, click here to immediately run the bot for your WikiProject.
  • Check out the results at quick glance by visiting this page and selecting your WikiProject.