Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Assessment

Project page Talk
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather

Article assessment is the process by which weather articles are sorted by quality and importance into the different quality categories and importance categories. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles.

Index · Statistics · Log

Weather articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 4 15 89 73 181
FL 1 4 31 41 77
FM 42 42
A 10 59 59 128
GA 21 75 402 675 1,173
B 6 13 43 39 101
C 47 236 588 853 1 71 1,796
Start 13 144 808 1,652 187 2,804
Stub 22 170 899 1 145 1,237
List 4 16 73 207 7 21 328
Current 2 2 4 6 14
Future 2 1 3
Category 2,362 2,362
Disambig 1 2 24 351 372 750
File 1 36 154 191
Portal 2 611 613
Project 1 150 151
Redirect 3 19 35 439 496
Template 1 1 7 30 766 805
Other 1 229 30 260
Assessed 101 542 2,297 4,632 5,113 827 13,512
Unassessed 1 10 11
Total 101 542 2,297 4,632 5,114 837 13,523
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 31,397 Ω = 4.23

Instructions Edit

Quality assessments Edit

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

{{WikiProject Weather|class=???}}

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 Weather articles)   FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Weather articles)   A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Weather articles)   GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Weather articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Weather articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Weather articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Weather articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Weather articles)   FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Weather articles) List
SIA (for set index articles; adds articles to Category:SIA-Class Weather articles) SIA
Current (for articles about current events; adds articles to Category:Current-Class Weather articles) Current
Future (for articles about future events; adds articles to Category:Future-Class Weather articles) Future

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 Weather articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Weather articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Weather articles) Draft
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class Weather articles)   FM
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Weather articles) File
Needed (for articles that do not yet exist, but have been identified as subjects that should be covered; adds pages to Category:Needed-Class Weather articles) Needed
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Weather articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Weather articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Weather articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Weather articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Weather articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Weather articles) ???

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.
 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. 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. Human
(as of April 2019)
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. Ring-tailed cardinalfish
(as of June 2018)
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. 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)

These criteria apply to general-content articles. Weather articles have additional criteria/guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for an article of each class; see the talk page for discussion of these.

Each weather article has its assessment included inside the {{WikiProject Weather}} template, such as {{WikiProject Weather|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Weather articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

B-Class criteria Edit

In addition to the above, B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet the following six criteria:

B
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
    It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required.
  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 certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
    Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and 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.

Importance assessments Edit

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

{{WikiProject Weather|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Weather articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Weather articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Weather articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Weather articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Weather articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Weather articles)  ??? 

Importance scale Edit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Kindergarten
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Factory Acts
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. 0.999...
 Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. G cell

Assessment log Edit

September 23, 2023 Edit

Renamed Edit

Reassessed Edit

Assessed Edit

Removed Edit

September 22, 2023 Edit

Reassessed Edit

September 21, 2023 Edit

Renamed Edit

Reassessed Edit

Assessed Edit

Removed Edit

September 20, 2023 Edit

Assessed Edit

September 19, 2023 Edit

Renamed Edit

Assessed Edit

September 18, 2023 Edit

Reassessed Edit

Assessed Edit

Removed Edit

September 17, 2023 Edit

Renamed Edit

Assessed Edit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Weather/Assessment&oldid=1146032663"