Wikipedia:WikiProject Saskatchewan/Saskatchewan collaboration
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Saskatchewan collaboration The goal of this project is to improve the Wikipedia's coverage of Saskatchewan-related articles. The aim of each collaboration is to take an undeveloped or underdeveloped Saskatchewan-related topic and improve it. This effort seeks to identify articles within the area of Saskatchewan interest that require improvement. The project is also used to fill gaps in Wikipedia, to give users a focus, and to give us all something to be proud of. It is also hoped that the successful execution of this initiative will a) Attract new editors to work on the Project; b) Improve the writing skills of existing editors; and c) Demonstrate the value of collaboration on Wikipedia. Goals
For a discussion on the correct format of Canada-related articles, please see Assessment Canada articles First, decide if it is necessary for the article to require a collaboration. Minor grammatical errors, article development and other simple tasks can be done by one person. Be bold! Recall the meaning of a stub is an article where "an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Web search or a few minutes in a reference library". B-Class checklisteditThis is available only for unrated articles and articles rated as "Stub-Class", "Start-Class", or "B-Class". See the assessment department for more details. For an article to qualify for B-class it must meet 5 points.
Good Article PatheditIn order to appear on the Canada Portal as a selected article an article should be of at least Good Article (GA) standard. Saskatchewan articles that have achieved GA or higher status are listed here. If you are aware of an article of this standard that is not on this list, please list it. It is unlikely that in one week any article will rise to the standards of a featured article. However, it should not be uncommon for an article to rise to the standard of good article after getting the attention of our membership. Being an article featured in the Saskatchewan Collaboration, pursuant to the membership focus, each article will go through a good article nomination. It will also give us a chance to perform some cleanup tasks that may take more than a few days. Furthermore, it will give us feedback to continue improving articles after their good article review. Also, part of a good article evaluation articles are assess for stability to make sure no controversial information has been added that has led to edit wars or other forms of instability. Articles that are not of GA standard will need to be improved before they can appear as selected Canada Portal articles. On a monthly basis the article which has had the most votes here will be the subject of an improvement drive. The article will be assessed against the Good Article standard and members of the Saskatchewan Wikiproject will be asked to help improve the article to meet that standard.
We will nominate the most interesting fact from the article for the WP:DYK feature. This will hopefully get our article on the Main_Page for 6 hours or so. Such exposure will help bring our article to the attention of many wikipedians who may be able to help us improve it. Each week watch the article's talk page for discussion about the DKY nomination. Generally, once an article reaches a critical mass of well-cited information, or 1,500 characters, we can nominate facts. At the conclusion of the collaboration or article improvement drive for each article, then we will send the article to the Assessment page to check where it falls on the grading scale following the upgrade. Whoever contributes the most to the article and improves it will get a barnstar. This will be determined at the end of each improvement drive process and the article improved has achieved at least B class. Current Articlesedit
Previous collaborations can be found at /History. Considerations for nominators and votersedit
NominationseditNote to contributors:
To add a new nomination, please:
===[[ARTICLE]]=== :''Nominated [[day]] [[2007]]; needs at least 3 votes by [[day + 14]] [[2007]]'' ; '''Reason:''' ; '''Support:''' # ~~~~ ; '''Comments:''' * ; '''To-do list''' * ----
Votingedit
Add your vote to one of the existing articles by putting support, together with your rationale, using and then sign the comment with ~~~~. A vote or a show of support for an article shows your commitment to support and aid in collaborating on that specific article if it is chosen. Although you are not required to fulfill that commitment, we ask that you only support articles that you are able to contribute to so that this collaboration's goals of expanding and improving articles can adequately be achieved. Feel free to vote for as many candidates as you like.
Selection criteriaeditA nomination can be selected once it has received four support votes. However it can only be made the collaboration once the current collaboration has been active for four weeks. If these criteria have been met then the following should be carried out: To change to a newly selected article, first close the previous one and then prepare the new article:
Templatesedit
Historyedit
|
List of nominations
edit- Nominated The Chaplin, Old Wives and Reed Lake complex June 17 2007; needs at least 3 votes by July 1 2007
- Reason: Saskatchewan sanctuary which is an international historic sites of global importance
- Support:
- Comments:
- To-do list Article needs to be started
Requests for A-Class statuseditIf you have made significant changes to a B-class or GA-class article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please list it at Peer Review stating in the introduction you would like the article reviewed to see if it is A-class.
Requesting an AssessmenteditIf you have made significant changes to a Saskatchewan related article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it here
|