Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Lithuania
Flag-map of Lithuania.svg
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
Sub-stubs 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.

FAQEdit

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.

InstructionsEdit

QualityEdit

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 pages that are not articles, the following values can also 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)   ??? 

ImportanceEdit

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Lithuania}}. See the template page for more detailed instructions.

{{WikiProject Lithuania| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed-importance Lithuania articles. The class 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 our 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; and
    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.
  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 either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—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 equalling) 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; but, 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

We recognize that importance is a relative term. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" 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.


Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Definition: Subject is a must-have for a concise print encyclopedia or other reference work on Lithuania. High probability that non-Lithuanians would look this up.

Practical tip: these subjects just pops into your head when you think about Lithuania and a specific field

Economy of Lithuania, Valdas Adamkus, Kaunas
High Definition: Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the encyclopaedia. Is reasonably expected to be included into more comprehensive printed encyclopedia.

Practical tip: you know the subject and most likely would be able to recall it without looking at any sources

Cepelinai, Rasa Polikevičiūtė, Pakruojis
Mid Definition: Subject fills in more minor details, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Could only be included in a multi-volume encyclopedia.

Practical tip: most likely you will recognize the subject if someone mentions it to you

Three Crosses, Nijolė Sabaitė, Palūšė
Low Definition: Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial.

Practical tip: most likely you will not recognize the subject

Tyzenhaus Palace, Pranė Dundulienė, Stripeikiai

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.


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.


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lithuania/Assessment&oldid=707257262"