Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes
WikiProject Earthquakes
WikiProject Earthquakes
WikiProject Earthquakes
/Assessment /History
/Bibliography /Images
Category:WikiProject Earthquakes

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Earthquakes! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about earthquakes, seismology, plate tectonics, and related subjects. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment 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 {{WP Earthquakes}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:WikiProject Earthquakes articles by quality and Category:WikiProject Earthquakes 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 Earthquakes is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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 somewhat subjective, 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.

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ

Instructions

edit

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WP Earthquakes}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WP Earthquakes | class= | importance= }}

The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below. The following values may be used for the class parameter:


The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below. The following values may be used for importance parameter:


Quality scale

edit

This table is transcluded here, and is identical to the one at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.

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


Importance scale

edit

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to seismologists and others working within the field.

This table has been written specifically for WikiProject Earthquakes, please read it carefully prior to making assessments of importance. It is currently UNDER CONSTRUCTION, please revise it as needed.

Label Criteria Examples
Top The article is about one of the core topics in seismology, or an extremely important and famed earthquake. Includes earthquakes with the most devastating consequences and the greatest earthquakes recorded. The most important types of earthquakes should be here, as we need to develop good articles about them. The most important instruments used to detect earthquakes should be in this category. Earthquake, Seismology, 1976 Tangshan earthquake, 1906 San Francisco earthquake, Great Hanshin earthquake
High The article is about a very important topic in seismology, or a very important and noted earthquake. Any earthquakes that have killed numerous people or produced large-scale environmental consequences (events with very high intensities) should be no lower than this level. Somewhat important or interesting instruments that measure and record motions of the ground, including those of seismic waves generated by earthquakes should go here. Articles about people or places notable for their association with an earthquake should be placed no higher than this category. 1972 Nicaragua earthquake, 2005 Kashmir earthquake, 2008 Sichuan earthquake, Mid-ocean ridge
Mid The article is about a fairly important topic in seismology, or a moderately important and notable earthquake. Any earthquake zones which are very active (or among the most active in their region) should also be rated no lower than this. Less important earthquakes should go here. Most extraterrestrial earthquakes should probably be rated no lower than this, since only the most important of them even have Wikipedia articles. 1356 Basel earthquake, Quake (natural phenomenon), 1996 Lijiang earthquake
Low The article is about a highly specific or minor topic in seismology, or a somewhat obscure and generally unknown earthquake. Many of the earthquakes in this category would be unfamiliar even to those with a broad knowledge of seismology and of worldwide earthquakes. 1979 Coyote Lake earthquake, 1892 Laguna Salada earthquake, 1906 Aleutian Islands earthquake

Requesting an assessment

edit

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 list it below. Be sure to sign yourself with four tilds (~~~~).

Assessment log

edit
WikiProject Earthquakes articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 3 5 8
  GA 1 9 26 15 1 52
B 11 34 48 26 2 121
C 19 85 126 151 7 388
Start 9 108 299 483 19 918
Stub 1 42 137 295 11 486
List 4 10 47 186 4 251
Category 713 713
Disambig 1 33 34
File 4 4
Portal 1 1
Project 25 25
Template 1 172 173
NA 2 6 193 1 202
Other 5 5
Assessed 41 285 654 1,024 1,332 45 3,381
Unassessed 2 2
Total 41 285 654 1,024 1,332 47 3,383
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 9,525 Ω = 4.83
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.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Earthquakes articles by quality log

Articles in need of expansion and cleanup

edit

Now that initial assessments have been completed, the most crtitical articles to attend to are those marked with "Top" importance, but only "Start" class (there are no "Stub"s in this category at this time). The most important such article is Seismology, which is one of the two flagship articles of this WikiProject (along with Earthquake) and is sorely in need of comprehensive expansion.

In general, "B" class articles which are "Mid" importance or higher should be polished up and nominated as good articles.

The easiest way to find articles which fall within a particular intersection of quality and importance categories is to use the Worklist below, which is transcluded from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WikiProject Earthquakes articles by quality.

Worklist

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

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.

See also

edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Earthquakes/Assessment&oldid=1102089968"