Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee
Tennessee articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 10 9 22
FL 1 12 13
A 2 1 1 4
GA 2 4 24 83 4 117
B 8 40 81 259 21 409
C 11 31 202 938 112 1,294
Start 38 437 3,713 499 4,687
Stub 7 121 3,909 753 4,790
List 8 33 146 3 78 268
Category 4,928 4,928
Disambig 44 44
File 204 204
Portal 1 1
Project 17 17
Template 640 640
NA 6 162 483 651
Other 46 46
Assessed 21 134 915 9,232 6,366 1,467 18,135
Unassessed 13 81 94
Total 21 134 915 9,245 6,366 1,548 18,229
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 58,816 Ω = 5.19

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Tennessee! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Tennessee related 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 {{WikiProject Tennessee}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Tennessee articles by quality and Category:Tennessee articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

edit
How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Tennessee 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.

Instructions

edit

Quality assessment

edit

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Tennessee}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

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 Tennessee articles)   FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Tennessee articles)   A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Tennessee articles)   GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Tennessee articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Tennessee articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Tennessee articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Tennessee articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Tennessee articles)   FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Tennessee 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 Tennessee pages) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Tennessee pages) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Tennessee pages) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Tennessee pages) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Tennessee pages) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Tennessee pages) Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Tennessee pages) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Tennessee pages) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Tennessee articles) ???

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.

Quality scale

edit
WikiProject content 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. 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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

Priority assessment

edit

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

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

The following values may be used for priority assessments:
• Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance Tennessee articles Top
• High - adds articles to Category:High-importance Tennessee articles High
• Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Tennessee articles Mid
• Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance Tennessee articles Low
• Leave this field blank to add to Category:Unassigned-importance Tennessee articles ???

Priority scale

edit
Label Criteria Examples
Top Core topics about Tennessee. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main Tennessee article, vital for the understanding of Tennessee or extremely notable to people outside of Tennessee. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members. Biographies should be limited to the top one or two Tennesseans in a particular field or persons of the greatest historical importance.

In a nutshell:
Known or of importance to a worldwide population.

Practical tip:
These subjects pop into your head when you think about Tennessee and a specific field.

History of Tennessee

Nashville, Tennessee
High Topics that are very notable within Tennessee, and well-known outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia.

In a nutshell:
Known or of importance to a countrywide population.

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

Great Smoky Mountains

Knoxville, Tennessee
Mid Topics that are reasonably notable on a local level within Tennessee without necessarily being famous or very notable outside of Tennessee. Could only be included in a multi-volume encyclopedia.

In a nutshell:
Known or of importance to a statewide population.

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

University of Tennessee at Chattanooga

Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Low Topics of mostly local interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial topics or topics that have only a limited connection to Tennessee.

In a nutshell:
Known or of importance to a local population.

Practical tip:
Most likely you will not recognize the subject.

Cumberland Gap Tunnel

Gresham Middle School

Articles needing attention

edit

If an article is in need of immediate attention (proper sourcing, significant cleanup, etc.), please denote this using the template as follows:

{{WikiProject Tennessee|...|attention=yes|...}}

This will add the article to Category:Tennessee articles needing attention. Also, add your concerns to the article's talk page, so an editor wishing to address the problem(s) can focus their efforts.

Please review this category from time to time to see if you can help with an article needing attention. Once the major problems have been addressed, please remove the attention notation from the template on the talk page.

Merge action needed

edit

When you propose a merge involving a WikiProject Tennessee article, please denote this using the template as follows:

{{WikiProject Tennessee|...|merge=yes|...}}

This will add the article to Category:Tennessee articles needing merge action.

Please review this category from time to time to see if you can help reach a consensus on the proposed merge. Once a consensus is reached (and the merge is performed, if appropriate), please remove the merge notation from the template on the talk page.

Article review & dispute resolution

edit

Older and resolved reviews can be found in the article review archive on the right.

Request an assessment

edit

If you have

  • started a Tennessee related article article and would like an outside opinion on it
  • made significant changes to a rated Tennessee related article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it
  • found a Tennessee related articles that has not been reviewed yet

please feel free to list it below for an assessment.


Perry County, Tennessee Just did a pretty big overhaul and expansion of the page. Still some work to be done but any thoughts on where to go from here would be helpful. Thanks! --nf utvol (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richland Creek (Nashville, Tennessee) I have added to this stub article to expand it considerably. In its original form, the article incorrectly had the creek flowing in the opposite direction. Thanks, Eagledj (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great use of sources and illustrations! I'll update the rating to Good Article. ElToAn123 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Baylor School added 01/02/2012   Done 13:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hot chicken This article was started by me, details the particular "Hot chicken" style of fried-chicken that is rather unique to Nashville. Joelmoses 2000 (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)  Y 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Army of the Tennessee This article has previously been rated B, but has now been extensively revised and a new assessment would seem to be in order. Thank you. Hartfelt (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Previously assessed as A. 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brandan Wright Worked on article and just added under project banner. Hoping for possible B-class rating. Thanx! WikiGuy86 (talk) 23:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Previously assessed as C. SBaker43 (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Edwards (radio host) This article is currently unassessed. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Article has been previously redirected to: The Political Cesspool.22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merlin Miller This article is currently unassessed. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Previously assessed.22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections Corporation of America This article is currently unassessed. Previously assessed. 22:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Millington, Tennessee This article has previously been rated a stub class article, but has now been extensively revised. I am requesting a new assessment. Thank-you. November 19, 2010  Y20:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Atoka, Tennessee This article is not complete, but could it be raised from a stub and from low importance? Suggestions welcome. User talk:SLBohrman I'm sorry, I signed this comment incorrectly. SLBohrman (talk) 22:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cumberland Caverns. I have revised overhauled this article significantly by adding a picture and breaking the text into three sections, two of which I wrote myself and one of which I edited to raise the writing quality. Denlah (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)  Y Upgraded to C RageBanken (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milan, Tennessee. This article is not complete, but has been drastically overhauled since its last review. Whomever reviews this article, please shoot me some feedback. I'll re-submit for review again in about a year with more fixes. I am under no dilusion that a city of this size will ever meet "FA" status, but I'm going to make it the best I can. Thanks for the time and consideration, don't forget to peek at the talk page (even if no one else talks, I document reasoning and thoughts there.) RageBanken (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)   Done 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tims Ford State Park. I just finished creating this article. I'm aware that it probably qualifies as a stub, but I'm still interested in hearing feedback before I get to clearing the rest of the red links in the Tennessee Protected Areas category. Thanks! Chris (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)   Done 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Memphis Area Transit Authority I have updated information on this article, such as ridership. I have also reorganized the article to flow more similarly to other transit agency articles. I have also added information about Ready! and Groove. The corresponding list article had some unnecessary information, so I have moved that information to the main article. I believe these improvements warrant a change from stub-class to start-class. ElToAn123 (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added substantially to the history section using citations from The Commercial Appeal archives. I'd even argue that the article is C-Class now. The gap in the history section from 1963 to 2017 and lack of detail in the bus section keep it from being B-Class. ElToAn123 (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute an assessment

edit

If your Tennessee related article has been rated and you do not agree with the rating, please keep in mind that assessments might not always be objective. Compare the article in question to the assessment standards for quality and importance as outlined above in this page. If you think the article in question meets higher standards than assessed, please feel free to list it below for a review.

The Southern College of Optometry article is no longer a stub, somewhere between a Start or a C. Hjk321 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project review

edit

If you are a member of the WikiProject Tennessee and want to suggest a Tennessee related article for review by other project members, please feel free to list it below.


Articles for deletion

edit

If you have found a Tennessee related article that you think needs to be deleted, please feel free to list it below for a review.


Assessment Log

edit
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.


January 16, 2025

edit

Reassessed

edit
  • Kirkland Bushwhackers (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

January 15, 2025

edit

Assessed

edit

January 14, 2025

edit

Reassessed

edit

Assessed

edit

January 13, 2025

edit

Reassessed

edit

Assessed

edit

January 12, 2025

edit

Assessed

edit

January 11, 2025

edit

Assessed

edit

Removed

edit

January 10, 2025

edit

Assessed

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennessee/Assessment&oldid=1190566063"