Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains

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

Three rail tracks 350.jpg The Trains WikiProject
General information
Main project page (WP:TWP)  talk
Portal (P:Trains) talk
Project navigation bar talk
Project participants talk
Project banner (doc) {{TWP}} talk
Project category talk
Manual of style (WP:TWP/MOS) talk
Welcome message talk
Departments
Assessments (WP:TWP/A) talk
Peer review (WP:TWP/PR) talk
To do list talk
Daily new article search search criteria talk
Task forces
Article maintenance talk
Assessment backlog elim. drive talk
By country series talk
Categories talk
Images talk
Locomotives talk
Maps talk
Models talk
Rail transport in Germany talk
Monorails talk
Operations talk
Passenger trains talk
Portal talk
Rail transport modelling talk
Timelines talk
This box:

Frequently asked questionsEdit

How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Anyone 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

Quality assessmentsEdit

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Trains}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Trains|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Quality scale for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class rail transport articles)   FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class rail transport articles)   A 
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class rail transport articles)   GA 
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class rail transport articles)   B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class rail transport articles)   C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class rail transport articles)   Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class rail transport articles)   Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class rail transport articles)   FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class rail transport articles)   List 

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Book (for Wikipedia books; adds pages to Category:Book-Class rail transport articles)   Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class rail transport articles)   Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class rail transport articles)   Disambig 
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class rail transport articles)   Draft 
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class rail transport articles)   File 
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class rail transport articles)   Redirect 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class rail transport articles)   Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class rail transport articles)   Project 
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class rail transport articles)   Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class rail transport articles)   NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed rail transport articles)   ??? 

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Rail transport articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

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. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.
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)

Importance assessmentEdit

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

{{WikiProject Trains| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

All articles that lack an importance rating are categorized in Category:Unknown-importance rail transport articles.

Importance scaleEdit

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics of rail transport. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on {{Train topics}} A reader who is not involved in rail transport will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. Train
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding the history or technology of rail transport. Most readers will at least be familiar with the topic being discussed. These articles describe the basics beyond the core topics about how trains work and the more significant historical events in rail transport history worldwide. Articles about the most basic topics in rail transport like rolling stock types, the largest railroad companies and the most historically and culturally significant topics are included in this level. Some technical terms can be used within articles in this range, but where they are used, they should be explained or at least link to articles that discuss the terms in more detail. First Transcontinental Railroad
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history or technology of rail transport. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand rail transport, such as main stations in secondary travel markets, former Class I railroads and more specialized types of equipment. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most railroad company executives will be rated in this level. Ulster and Delaware Railroad
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of rail transport technology or history. Few readers outside the rail transport industry or that are not within the local area of the article's topic may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of rail transport, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most metro and local railway stations, short line railroad companies and limited or one-off productions of equipment or facilities that otherwise had no significant impact on the rail industry. Jordanhill railway station

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 add it at the bottom of the list below.

  1. San Francisco Historic Trolley Festival (new article)
      Done assessed as C class. i would suggest combining related level 2 headers together and use level 3 and 4 headings. 1.02 editor (T/C) 09:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  2. Montreal and Southern Counties Railway
  3. Kominato Station
  4. GW Train Regio
  5. Altoona Subdivision
      Done reassessed as start class 1.02 editor (T/C) 13:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  6. Cheshire Lines Committee Significant revision
  7. Cheshire Midland Railway Significant revision

Assessment logEdit

Rail transport articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

February 17, 2020Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

February 16, 2020Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

February 15, 2020Edit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

February 14, 2020Edit

AssessedEdit

February 13, 2020Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

  • UIC franc (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

AssessedEdit

February 12, 2020Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

  • E261 series (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Georgina (locomotive) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Tunnel boom (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

AssessedEdit

February 11, 2020Edit

ReassessedEdit

  • FTI railway station (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Fuente de la Mora Station (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Kaprun disaster (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Platform 0 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Disambig-Class to Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

AssessedEdit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trains/Assessment&oldid=937218576"