Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Assessment

Lithuania WikiProject

General information Main project page talk New articles talk Article alerts talk Watchlist talk Articles up for deletion Conflict resolution talk Project banner talk Top 10 tips talk Project navigation talk Project userbox talk Project category talk Articles to expand Cleanup list talk General stubs talk Geography stubs talk People stubs talk History stubs talk Assessment Summary talk 1.0 Editorial Team talk Articles by quality talk Automated log talk Assessment statistics talk Assessment category talk Popular pages talk

Welcome to the assessment department of the Lithuania WikiProject!

The goal of this department is to accurately rate the quality and relative importance of Lithuania-related articles on Wikipedia. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. The ratings are modeled after the WP:1.0 program guidelines and are expected to play a role in it.

The assessment is done by entering relevant parameters in the {{WikiProject Lithuania}}, the project banner; this causes the articles to be automatically placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Lithuania articles by quality and Category:Lithuania articles by importance.

FAQ

1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?

Just add {{WikiProject Lithuania}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else. However, we would certainly appreciate if you could rate the article according to the guidelines below and leave a short summary of your rationale on the talk page.

2. What is the purpose of the article ratings?

The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles we are interested in and helps to prioritize work. 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.

3. How can I get an article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

4. Who can assess articles?

Any Wikipedian, who has familiarized himself/herself with the guidelines below, is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

5. 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.

6. 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 raise your objectins on the article talk page.

7. Aren't the ratings subjective?

Yes, they are subjective, especially concerning importance. However, it's the best system we've been able to devise. And it works pretty well for many different WikiProjects. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

8. What if I have a question not listed here?

Ask questions on the talk page.

Instructions

Quality

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

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

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

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

Importance

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Lithuania}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Lithuania|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 Lithuania articles)		Top
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Lithuania articles)		High
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Lithuania articles)		Mid
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Lithuania articles)		Low
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Lithuania articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Lithuania articles)		???

Quality scale

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. 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: 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. 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. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.	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.[under discussion]	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: 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. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (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. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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 meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.	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 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. More detailed criteria 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. 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. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. 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.	Psychology (as of January 2024)
C	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.	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 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.	Ball (as of September 2014)
Stub	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.	Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 literary movements

Importance scale

We recognize that importance is a relative term. An article judged to be "Top-importance" in one context may be only "Mid-importance" in another. Any importance ratings applied by this project, only reflect the perceived importance to this project. The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather it should serve as a guideline for project participants to determine which article should receive more attention.

WikiProject article importance scheme

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.	Economy of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus, Kaunas
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Cepelinai, Rasa Polikevičiūtė, Pakruojis
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	Three Crosses, Nijolė Sabaitė, Palūšė
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.	Tyzenhaus Palace, Pranė Dundulienė, Stripeikiai
NA	Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.	Category:Lithuania
???	Subject importance has not yet been assessed.

Requests for assessment

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.

• Saint George Roman Catholic Lithuanian Church updated - photos to be added soon - expanding "red" links to "blue" ones (adding link pages

I feel it could be upgraded to high importance and at least B class article. We are awaiting photos from the church archives at the moment.

• Would like to have the Talk: Konstantinas Sirvydas moved to Low-importance status. Dr. Dan 05:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dan, it's not talk rated, It's notability of Konstantinas Sirvydas article.--Lokyz 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's what he meant. :-) I think it deserves to stay at its current classification, though. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Užupis is currently classified as Stub-class, but I think it's improved since its last rating. I did the last rewrite, so feel free to gab at me if you have complaints! :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Maybe Telšiai deserves to be Top importance. But I cant figure out why Telšiai County is so notable (Top importance) to compare with, for example, Vilnius county or other topics? Yes, the article is almost empty, but it is not the reason for top importance. Orionus 08:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There are tons of inconsistencies in tagging the importance (because no one bothered to develop a clear guideline or structure). Be bold, and thanks for cathing it! Renata 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Would like Kurier Wileński moved to High importance status. Klon-immortal 00:00, 25 July 2007 (GMT +2)
• Klaipeda Airport has been created to eliminate ensuing confusion brought by IATA that assigns Palanga International Airport as Klaipeda's own. Plead to upgrade to mid-importance Ttk371
• Drąsius Kedys should be moved upward in the scale. Additional input to the article needed as well.
• Request for assessment: Kyviškės Airfield is listed as "Start class", but it seems to meet all the criteria for Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria. The importance is currently listed as Low, but "Mid" would be more appropriate. It is the main airport near Vilnius when it comes to trainings, events, movie sets and leisure flights. It is also more notable than Klaipėda Airfield, which has "mid-importance" rating. Frequently.by.train (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for assessment – Kyviškės Airfield

• @Pofka:, @Cukrakalnis:, @Marcelus:, @Piotrus::
  Could you please help me decide on Quality_scale and Importance_scale of Kyviškės Airfield?
  If this question is in any way inappropriate – please let me know. And I am sorry if that is the case.
  I selected your nicknames randomly from Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania
• As for importance, should it be mid or high?
  It seems that high would be most appropriate.
  Less prominent and less important Lithuanian airfields are often ranked mid, for example Klaipėda Airfield, Kazlų Rūda Air Base, Jonava Air Base and others.
  High feels approapriate looking to what is ranked high, for example Palūšė, Vilnius Book Fair, Stelmužė Oak and others.
• As for quality, I think it clears the bar for B. Would you agree?
  It clears the official criteria for B – Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria.
  Furthermore, the article is comparable to other articles ranked B, for example Battle of Kokenhausen, Eliezer Silver and others. Also, there are other airport articles of similar or lower quality which are ranked B, for example Huntsville Regional Airport, Dickson Field, Djilma Airfield, Mandal Airfield and others.
• Would it clear the bar for Good article? There are airport related articles of similar quality which are rated "good article" for example Trondheim Airport Station, Rørvik Airport and others. It feels like a 50/50 case for me. If it is enough for “good article”, then it is great. Great because it could serve as a template for other small airfields in Lithuania, Baltics and beyond. If it is not enough, what should be improved?
• Signed Frequently.by.train (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Frequently.by.train: Considering that the airfield has way more notability and importance than the Lithuanian airports you linked to and which are considered mid-importance, I would be all for classifying this as a high-importance article.

  Regarding the class criteria, it definitely passes B-Class. Personally, I think that the article deserves just slightly more work for it to be a Good article, because it now has many facts about why the airport is important, but it feels like it should have larger paragraphs. For example, for cinema, I would name more series and such, while for the war and independence section, I would add more information like the names of the Soviet air force units. Please note, these are just ideas and I myself will not classify the article as good because I don't think it fair for me to able to label articles good or not when I have not created an article that has been labelled a Good article.

  Anyways, you should put the article forward for consideration as a good article in a more general wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation, because people there will most likely now what constitutes a good article about an airport. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Cukrakalnis:!

  Is it ok for me to change to high and B?

  Talk:Kyviškės_airfield

  It feels that someone else should do it, given that I wrote most of that particular article.
  Signed Frequently.by.train (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I'll do it for you then. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Frequently.by.train If you want to nominate the article for Good article, I recommend you start by reading and doing the Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Speaking as someone who does a lot of assessing: importance scale is generally not important, as in - almost nobody pays attention to this. Not to say you cannot seriously consider it, it is just a discussion about how important is an article is something I see maybe once every 5 years if not 10... Now, quality assessment is more relevant (folks care about it more). But frankly, stub to B is a rule-of-thumb done by individuals who care. A few project have B-class review systems but most are not active enough for it to work, I think milhist and biography are notable exceptions (I tried to make it work for Poland and gave up, nobody but me assessed stuff). So from where I stand, anyone can change the importance as they wish, and quality, up to a B, sure. That said, the article looks rather short for me, and I'd assess it as C myself unless I was sure it is reasonably comprehensive. See also WP:ASSESS guidelines. B-class articles should be "mostly complete". Is that article mostly complete? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for such a thorough response.

  I think it's complete, it covers a variety of topics and there is hardly any more information on a tiny airfield without commercial flights. Frequently.by.train (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

• @Frequently.by.train: Hi, thanks for participating in WikiProject Lithuania. The article of Kyviškės airfield is quite good and well-referenced (being a suitable combination of this, I think it already passes B-class criteria). Nevertheless, I have doubts if article about Kyviškės airfield is high-importance because per article content it is a "small regional airfield", "As of 2023, this airfield is primarily used for events and trainings, no domestic or international commercial routes operate here", therefore I highly doubt that it is as important as the Vilnius Airport (the main airport of Lithuania's capital Vilnius; also rated as high-importance article). Given quite important moments in Kyviškės airfield's history, I think it would be better to qualify it as a mid-importance article. -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for your comment, much appreciated. I agree, it is definitely much less important than Vilnius Airport. Frequently.by.train (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)