Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Ports/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Ports

Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed
Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown


The assessment department of WikiProject Ports focuses on assessing the quality and comprehensiveness of Wikipedia's ports-related pages. The purpose of assessments is to give recognition to high-quality articles and draw attention to those that need more work.

The ratings are recorded in paramters found within the {{WP Ports}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Ports articles by quality and Category:Ports articles by importance, which are the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Skip to current candidates Skip to current requests for assessment

How to nominate a page edit

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please place it at the bottom of the section for assessment requests below, using the syntax: 

# {{la|ArticleName}} ~~~~

with an edit summary of "Nominating [[ArticleName]]". Please note that articles can only be given a rating up to B-class here. For Good Article class and higher, more formal reviews are needed.

How to review an article edit

  1. Check that you have logged in; anons may not review articles.
  2. Choose and read an article from the list
  3. Place the {{WP Ports| class=| importance=}} tag at the top of the article's talk page if it does not already exist.
    • Read the quality scale and set the class parameter to B, start, stub or NA.
    • (optional) Read the importance scale and set the importance parameter to Top, High, Mid or Low.
  4. Save the talk page. If you wish to leave detailed comments about your assessment, there is an option to do so on the project banner.
  5. Remove the article from the section for assessment requests using the edit summary "Assessed [[ArticleName]]".

Frequently asked questions edit

Ports pages by quality
Quality
Total
Assessed 0
Total 0
How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Ports}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
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 Ports WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Instructions edit

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WP Ports}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax): 

{{WP Ports
|class=  
|importance=
|attention=
|photo=
|history=
|geography=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Ports articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale edit

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.

  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;
    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; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  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 footnotes—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 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:
  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 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:
  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. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or 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 non-free 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 (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
  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. 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 edit

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it).

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information. The Port article is currently the only "Top" class article for this WikiProject
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers an essential topic. The world's largest or most strategic shipping ports are usually in his category
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. Substantial shipping ports and lines will probably fall into this category.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia. Minor ports and pieces of port equipment probaby belong here.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Requesting an assessment edit

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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Please place new requests at the bottom of the list.

  1. Port of Odessa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mario1987 14:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done by Sfeclamare. A nice expansion. Might also benefit from more secondary references and if possible, some kind of map of the port layout. Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Port of Copenhagen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Mario1987 14:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Done by Sfeclamare. As above, secondary references and a map might also be good. A port this old might also have a need for a "history" section if one could be put together. I'll have a hunt around the usual sources, see if I can add anything. Euryalus (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Derrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I didn't make improvements, but I tagged it - it currently has no assessments but it is a lengthy article. Thanks, Walkerma(talk) 02:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Port of New York and New Jersey
Floated this article couple days ago, It's new. Would like to include current drydock and tugboat operations, but not much luck with finding relevent info and sources.Djflem (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. DP_World (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hunner75 (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Port of Latakia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I wrote this a while ago, but it had no citations. I fixed and referenced it and added recent statistics. Yazan (talk) 17:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Newport Docks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I see that this group has given Newport Docks a Low Importance assessment. Can this be right? It was the largest dock in the world from 1875 to about 1960. Afterbrunel (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"an obscure piece of trivia. Minor ports and pieces of port equipment probaby (sic) belong here." Afterbrunel (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Falmouth Docks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have recently expanded the article on Falmouth Docks and would appreciate someone checking to make sure the terminolgy is ok for a marine article; would also appreciate it someone could fill in the info box. Many thanks, Jowaninpensans (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kollam Port (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting an assessment - Arunvrparavur (talk) 08:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Port of Dipolog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Requesting for assessment. Xander Wu (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participants edit

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. Euryalus (talk · contribs · count)
  2. Camelbinky (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Log edit

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ports/Assessment&oldid=1156126487"