| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Libraries articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 FA
|
1 | 5 | 6 | ||||
| FL
|
1 | 2 | 5 | 8 | |||
| FM
|
14 | 14 | |||||
 GA
|
2 | 4 | 6 | 37 | 49 | ||
| B | 3 | 17 | 44 | 139 | 203 | ||
| C | 9 | 29 | 139 | 703 | 880 | ||
| Start | 9 | 59 | 379 | 3,548 | 74 | 4,069 | |
| Stub | 13 | 88 | 2,393 | 52 | 2,546 | ||
| List | 3 | 5 | 113 | 344 | 465 | ||
| Category | 2,157 | 2,157 | |||||
| Disambig | 18 | 18 | |||||
| File | 32 | 32 | |||||
| Project | 21 | 21 | |||||
| Redirect | 249 | 249 | |||||
| Template | 77 | 77 | |||||
| Other | 22 | 22 | |||||
| Assessed | 26 | 128 | 772 | 7,174 | 2,590 | 126 | 10,816 |
| Unassessed | 7 | 7 | |||||
| Total | 26 | 128 | 772 | 7,174 | 2,590 | 133 | 10,823 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 39,848 | Ω = 5.14 | |||||
Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Libraries. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Libraries 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.
Category:Libraries articles by quality serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Libraries}} project banner. Filling in a rating in the class parameter of the {{WikiProject Libraries}} template on the talk page of an article causes the name of that article to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Libraries articles by quality.
The following system is based on the general criteria for assessing how close we are to a distribution-quality article on a particular topic. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors. Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made.
Frequently asked questionsEdit
- How can I get an article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Libraries WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- 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.
- 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.
Assessment instructionsEdit
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Libraries}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Libraries articles. At present, there are many articles that need assessment (e.g., that need to have a class inserted in the class parameter of the {{WikiProject Libraries}} template).
WikiProject Libraries articles to be assessed have some aspects of the {{WikiProject Libraries}} template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. Select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed Libraries articles. Then, look over the article in anticipation of filling out the parameters of the {{WikiProject Libraries}} template. Finally, add in the proper parameters for both quality and importance to the talk page template, as outlined below.
Quality assessmentEdit
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Libraries}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Libraries|class=???}}
Quality scaleEdit
| 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.
|
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. | Literary Hall (as of October 2017) |
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured 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. | National Film Registry (as of October 2017) |
 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. | Currently none (as of October 2017) |
| 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:
|
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. | Ronald Reagan Presidential Library (as of October 2017) |
| 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:
|
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. | Google Play (as of October 2017) |
| 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. | Kurt Vonnegut Memorial Library (as of October 2017) |
| 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. | Bach Archive (as of October 2017) |
| 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. | Robertson Library (as of October 2017) |
| 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 Carnegie libraries in Pennsylvania (as of October 2017) |
Importance assessmentEdit
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Libraries}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Libraries|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):
| Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Libraries articles) | Top | |
| High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Libraries articles) | High | |
| Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Libraries articles) | Mid | |
| Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Libraries articles) | Low | |
| NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Libraries articles) | NA | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Libraries articles) | ??? |
Assessment requestEdit
If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Note: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the Assessment page to request one. If you assess an article, please remove it so that other editors will not waste time reviewing the same articles. Thanks!
Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B'; see Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles for higher assessments.
Edit this section and place request here:
- Petworth Neighborhood Library - I've expanded this stub-class article and would love to get feedback on its progress, Bleubsdorf (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC) -->
- @Bleubsdorf: Looks real nice, great job. I've changed the listing to C class. The only thing I'll say is that it might look better to expand on each of those short sentences in the history section so it doesn't read like bullet points. Also, since it's on the NRHP you might be able to add another infobox for it on that page. Check out Template:Infobox NRHP. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
- UK Web Archive Requesting a reassessment for this article, as it was recently moved and updated. Thanks Timeousbeastie (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Thinkalazhcha Nishchayam - Requesting an assessment for this article which was created by me.Sonal Mathew (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Anna Ben, Antony Varghese, Nimisha Sajayan, Sunny Wayne, Kaanekkaane - Requesting a reassessment for all these articles as I don't agree with the present assessment given for them. Moreover many updates were made to these articles after their assessment.Sonal Mathew (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Cleanup listingEdit
Current cleanup listings can be found here.
Assessment logEdit
- Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.
Assessment log - click on "show" to the right to expand
| ||
|---|---|---|
June 25, 2022EditAssessedEdit
June 24, 2022EditReassessedEdit
AssessedEdit
June 23, 2022EditRenamedEditJune 22, 2022EditAssessedEdit
June 21, 2022EditRenamedEditAssessedEdit
June 20, 2022EditRenamedEdit
June 19, 2022EditAssessedEdit |
