Welcome to the assessment page of WikiProject Open. This focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to openness. 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.

Quality scale edit

Importance scale edit

The purpose of the importance rating is to direct the project's article improvement efforts towards the most important articles, and also to provide a convenient shortlist of important topics for readers who are interested in open topics.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top priority Subject is extremely important. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Open access
High priority Subject is clearly notable. Subject is interesting to, or directly affects, many readers. GNU project
Mid priority Normal priority for article improvement. A good article would be interesting or useful to many readers. Open textbook
Low priority Article may only be included to cover a specific part of a more important article, or may be more loosely connected to the topic. Frontiers (publisher)
NA NA means Not an Article. This label is used for all pages that are not articles, such as templates, categories, and disambiguation pages. (To mark an article as "needs assessment" or "not assessed," simply leave the importance parameter empty, like this: |importance= ) WikiProject Open

Statistics edit

WikiProject Open assessment statistics

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Open articles by quality statistics worklistlogcategory

  1. ^ For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. However, where quite a number of pictures exist, for instance, the moon landing, FPC attempts to select the best of the ones produced.
  2. ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
  3. ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.