Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport in Scotland/Assessment
This is the assessment page of WikiProject Transport in Scotland.
Scotland Transport articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 5 | 9 | 1 | 15 | |||
B | 2 | 21 | 76 | 16 | 9 | 124 | |
C | 5 | 23 | 183 | 72 | 24 | 307 | |
Start | 19 | 250 | 359 | 363 | 991 | ||
Stub | 14 | 390 | 725 | 1,129 | |||
List | 1 | 13 | 26 | 29 | 69 | ||
Category | 401 | 401 | |||||
Disambig | 6 | 6 | |||||
File | 7 | 7 | |||||
Project | 7 | 7 | |||||
Redirect | 1 | 2 | 7 | 62 | 72 | ||
Template | 174 | 174 | |||||
NA | 2 | 1 | 10 | 13 | |||
Assessed | 7 | 71 | 549 | 872 | 667 | 1,150 | 3,316 |
Total | 7 | 71 | 549 | 872 | 667 | 1,150 | 3,316 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 13,359 | Ω = 5.20 |
Classification scale
editLabel | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FA {{FA-Class}} |
The article has obtained Featured article status.
|
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. | Tourette Syndrome (as of June 2008) | ||||
FL {{FL-Class}} |
The article has obtained Featured list status.
|
FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008) | ||||||
A {{A-Class}} |
The article is well organized and is essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere, as described here.
|
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. | Durian (as of March 2007) | ||||
GA {{GA-Class}} |
The article has obtained Good article status.
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although 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. | International Space Station (as of February 2007) | ||||
B {{B-Class}} |
The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria:
|
No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. | Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) | ||||
C {{C-Class}} |
The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
|
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 address cleanup issues. | Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008) | ||||
Start {{Start-Class}} |
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Real analysis (as of November 2006) | ||||
Stub {{Stub-Class}} |
A very basic description of the topic.
|
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. | Coffee table book (as of July 2005) |
For frequently asked questions about this, see see Wikipedia:Version 1.0.
Importance scale
editFor now, this will use the Wikipedia version 0.5 importance scale.
Need: The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality
Top | Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia |
High | Subject contributes a depth of knowledge |
Mid | Subject fills in more minor details |
Low | The subject is mainly of specialist interest |
None | Unassessed, importance still to be determined |
Quality log
editThere were no logs for this project from November 13, 2024 - November 20, 2024.