Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing/Assessment

Project page Talk
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing
Wikisurf.jpg
Trawer Hauling Nets.jpg
WikiProject
Fisheries and Fishing
Main project talk
Assessment statistics
Traffic statistics
Articles talk
Proposals talk
Resources talk
Project subpages
Members
Requested fishing articles talk
Things you can do
To-do list
Assessment
Unassessed articles
Expand stub class articles
Other
Outreach
Newsletter
Recent updates
Featured/good articles
Categories
Templates
Articles for deletion talk
Subpages

Welcome to the WikiProject Fishing Article Assessment pages!

StatisticsEdit

Fishing articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 2 1 3
  GA 1 5 14 9 29
B 6 67 72 41 3 189
C 9 62 155 173 10 409
Start 4 82 401 466 100 1,053
Stub 8 122 335 69 534
List 12 28 40
Category 268 268
Disambig 2 2
File 7 7
Project 9 9
Redirect 33 33
Template 34 34
Other 21 21
Assessed 20 226 777 1,052 374 182 2,631
Unassessed 1 72 73
Total 20 226 777 1,053 374 254 2,704
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,736 Ω = 4.84


  FA
  A
  GA
B
Start
Stub
Notes: The template that gives us these totals does not correctly link to Unassessed articles. As it is a shared template, we do not wish to change it. The link to find Unassessed articles is: Category:Unassessed Fishing articles. This box is updated automatically on an approximately weekly basis - it may not be the exact totals of assessment at this moment.

Version 1.0 Editorial TeamEdit

Using the Template Assessment ParametersEdit

The {{WPFISHING}} template also has variables to add in assessment data. You may use either of the following examples with the template: 

{{WPFISHING|class=|importance=}}

or 

{{WP:FISHING
|class=
|importance=
}}

The arguments passed through the template are class and importance. They may be the following:

ClassEdit

FA=Featured Article (See Below)
A=A-Class
GA=Good Article (See Below)
B=B-Class
Stub=Stub-Class
Start=Start-Class

ImportanceEdit

Top = Top Importance
High = High Importance
Mid = Middle Importance
Low = Low Importance
NB Generally, the Importance of an article is not related to the current Class of the article, nor its current state of editing. "Importance" refers to how the average person seeking knowledge on Fishing-related articles would recognize the article's importance to Fishing in general. For example, a species that is listed in the FAO Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics Yearbook as commercially fished should be ranked at least Mid.
Example: If you wanted to rate an article as a Good Article of Middle Importance, the code is: 
{{WP:FISHING|class=GA|importance=Mid}}

More information on assessments can be found at Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Team.

Adding RatingsEdit

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Please note that FA-Class article designation means this is a Featured Article. Featured Articles are determined by the Featured Article Candidates process. Editors and Fishing assessment team members should not rate articles FA-Class, but rather propose articles to the Featured Article candidate process.
A-Class articles are at the pinnacle of Fishing Assessment team evaluation. An A-Class article may be one heading towards FA-status, or be better than B-Class but not obtained the GA or FA ratings from their respective evaluation teams.
Please note that GA-Class articles are Good Articles, determined by the Good Articles WikiProject team. GA-Class should not be assigned by editors or Fishing Assessment team members, but rather propose articles to
B-Class Fishing Articles are ones which possess more material that Start- or Stub- class articles, but need further polishing and work to bring them up to GA, A, or FA-Class status.
This is used for either a) Places where the template exists outside of the Article Talk namespaces, or b) Rating has not yet been made by an editor or the Fishing Project Assessment Team. Not specifying the parameter defaults the rating Unassessed.

ExamplesEdit

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: 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. Fishing as of July 2007.
  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 non-free 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. Fishery as of July 2007.
  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. Maggot as of July 2007.
  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. Spoonplug as of July 2007.
  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)

Information on how to evaluate an article for class may be found at WP 1.0 Assessment Grading.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Assessment Drive CollaborationEdit

The Assessment Drive is on, beginning Monday, June 18, 2007! Ratings discussions on specific articles are located at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishing/Assessment/Drive. Come join us!

The Assessment TeamEdit

Membership on the Assessment Team is purely voluntary. You may add your name below, if you wish. Adding your name, however, is not necessary to assisting us in the assessment process.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fisheries_and_Fishing/Assessment&oldid=808864166"