Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour/Assessment
Organized labour articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
3 | 6 | 3 | 12 | |||
![]() |
1 | 8 | 21 | 33 | 63 | ||
B | 16 | 64 | 252 | 151 | 5 | 488 | |
C | 14 | 70 | 230 | 372 | 85 | 771 | |
Start | 35 | 175 | 713 | 1,322 | 347 | 2,592 | |
Stub | 20 | 366 | 774 | 813 | 266 | 2,239 | |
List | 1 | 6 | 10 | 29 | 46 | ||
Category | 1,387 | 1,387 | |||||
Disambig | 15 | 15 | |||||
File | 36 | 36 | |||||
Portal | 494 | 494 | |||||
Project | 5 | 5 | |||||
Redirect | 87 | 87 | |||||
Template | 68 | 68 | |||||
NA | 745 | 745 | |||||
Other | 1 | 8 | 9 | ||||
Assessed | 87 | 692 | 2,007 | 2,723 | 2,845 | 703 | 9,057 |
Unassessed | 1 | 10 | 1,285 | 1,296 | |||
Total | 87 | 692 | 2,008 | 2,733 | 2,845 | 1,988 | 10,353 |
Welcome to the assessment department of the Organized Labour WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's trade union and organized labour 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.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{LabourProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Organized labour articles by quality and Category:Organized labour articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist (Index · Statistics · Log).
Frequently asked questionsEdit
- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Organized Labour WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- 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.
- 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.
InstructionsEdit
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{LabourProject}} project banner on its talk page:
{{LabourProject | class= | importance= | AOTD= | featurebox= | inmedia= | small= }}
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class organized labour articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class organized labour articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class organized labour articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class organized labour articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class organized labour articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class organized labour articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article organized labour pages)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed organized labour articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
The following values may be used for the importance parameter:
- Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance organized labour articles)
- High (adds articles to Category:High-importance organized labour articles)
- Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance organized labour articles)
- Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance organized labour articles)
Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance organized labour articles. The class should be assigned according to the importance scale below.
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. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
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. | 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:
|
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:
|
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; 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. | 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
Label | Criteria | Detail | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
Top | Reserved for the primary articles on organized labour. These are considered fundamental to the topic. |
|
|
High | Major international articles, activists, strikes and movements. National trade union organizations. |
|
|
Mid | General labour articles, national articles, activists, strikes and movements, and main articles on trade unions. |
|
|
Low | Minor labour articles, national articles, activists, strikes and movements. Articles on trade union locals. | ||
NA | Used when an importance rating is not applicable. For example, for templates, categories, and files. |
Requesting an 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.
- Confectionery Workers' Union of Australia - significant edits made, potentially due for a re-grade
- Andrew Furuseth - Thanks! Haus42 01:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Starbucks Workers Unionrated.--Bookandcoffee 17:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- Justice for Janitors request High rating for significance of movement for US labor in particular
Graduate student unionizationrequest that the project adopt this page. I just made some edits, but previously it was pretty biased against unions and remains somewhat so.
- -Added labour tag--Bookandcoffee 16:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
World Confederation of Labour- Big revision, probably more than Start-class now. Cheers. -- Scartol 18:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- -definitely B --Bookandcoffee 06:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
- Effect of the 2007–08 Writers Guild of America strike on television - Partially large revision. Request comments on how to further improve the article. --haha169 (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Bellinzona railway workers strike of 2008- Damian Doyle (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- rated.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Kenyan tea workers strike of 2007- Damian Doyle (talk) 08:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- rated.--Goldsztajn (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
UK miners' strike (1984–1985) currently only "Mid" importance, I think it should be High. Fundamental to an understanding of the decline of the UK labour movement and from an international POV it was key to the ascendance of the Thatcherism / neo-liberalism that became economic orthodoxy over the subsequent 20 years.Chaikney (talk) 22:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, good spot, moved to High.--Goldsztajn (talk) 00:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Triple Alliance (1914) is currently rated as 'start class', but substantial amendments have expanded and improved it. Thedaggerz (talk) 13:28, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
- International Workers' Association Major update to the history section. Not sure if it's worth a B class yet as other parts like organization still need work, but would appreciate a steer (talk) 15.57, 6 Oct 2011
Marine Cooks, Bakers and Butchers' Association of Australasia requires assessment (probably start class, low importance)- Warrenjs1 (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Federated Marine Stewards' and Pantrymen's Association of Australasia requires assessment (probably start class, low importance}- Warrenjs1 (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Marine Motor Drivers and Coxswains' Union of New South Wales requires assessment (probably start class, low importance}- Warrenjs1 (talk) 06:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
United Voice Major update including restructure, additional content etc.AlexinaDuel (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
- Sex worker Major update including information on legality of sex work, risk reduction, unionization, and other topics. Currently rated start-class; probably C- or even B-class now. Thanks, Ktpost68 (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Harold A. Schaitberger - Article I previously created on the current International Association of Fire Fighters President may be of interest to this WikiProject.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Winnipeg General Strike request higher rating due to major revisions and updates --
Ami du peuple (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Georgia Railroad strike of 1909 - Recently created article, looking for assessment. Thanks, JJonahJackalope (talk) 12:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- 1977 Atlanta sanitation strike - Again, recently created article, looking for assessment. Thanks, JJonahJackalope (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
- 2019 AT&T strike - New article, requesting assessment. JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- 1881 Atlanta washerwomen strike - Same as above JJonahJackalope (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Indian general strike of 2020 - Largest general strike in human history, seems like it should be classified as more important than "Low". TorpedoFahrt (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
- James Larkin Substantially edited since last assessment - Grosseteste (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Assessment logEdit
- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record. |
May 20, 2022Edit
ReassessedEdit
- Henry Foner (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
May 19, 2022Edit
ReassessedEdit
- Joan Bray (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
- Northumberland Miners' Association (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Tom Brown (anarchist) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
May 18, 2022Edit
ReassessedEdit
- IndustriALL – European Trade Union (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
AssessedEdit
- Saúl Méndez (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
May 17, 2022Edit
AssessedEdit
- Federation autonome du collegial (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Tom Brown (anarchist) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
May 16, 2022Edit
ReassessedEdit
- Confederation of Workers from Turkey in Europe (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
- Eurocadres (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
AssessedEdit
- European Transport Workers' Federation (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
May 15, 2022Edit
AssessedEdit
- Allen Dorfman (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Frank Cousins (British politician) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
RemovedEdit
- Frank Cousins (talk) removed.
May 14, 2022Edit
ReassessedEdit
- Japan Federation of Foods and Tobacco Workers' Unions (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)