Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender studies/Assessment

Gender studies articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	2		5		3	11
FL						2	2
A				1		1	2
GA	1	4	14	29		7	55
B	19	37	140	191		102	489
C	24	67	271	443		292	1,097
Start	4	28	120	637		650	1,439
Stub		2	12	201		220	435
List		6	13	64		40	123
NA		2	7	13	1,471		1,493
Assessed	49	148	577	1,584	1,471	1,317	5,146
Unassessed				2		82	84
Total	49	148	577	1,586	1,471	1,399	5,230
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 15,772			Ω = 4.47

Project Gender studies ⇒ Project page ⇒ Talk page ⇒ Notice Board ⇒ Translation ⇒ Assessment ⇒ Popular pages ⇒ Templates ⇒ Collaboration ⇒ Deletion sorting ⇒ WikiProject Feminism ⇒ Portal:Feminism Category:WikiProject Gender studies

One of the proposed tasks of Project Gender studies is to assess the quality of Wikipedia's Gender studies articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to help in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. This plays a role in the WP:1.0 program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Gender studies}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Gender studies articles by quality and Category:Gender studies articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

How to Assess

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Gender studies}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

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

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Gender studies articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Gender studies articles)		???

Discussing / Disputing ratings

Please use this subpage's talk page to question and/or discuss article ratings.

Quality scale

It is suggested that Project Gender studies use the same criteria for grading articles as set out by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, as set out below.

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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and 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. 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. 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.	Fight Club
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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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 female Nobel laureates
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.	Womanism
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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 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.	Feminism
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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.	Gender typing
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.	Coloniality of gender
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.	Birth name
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.	Gender empowerment
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 female scientists in the 21st century
NA	Any non-article page that fits no other classification.	The page contains no article content.	Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified.	Category:WikiProject Gender studies
???	Article quality has not yet been assessed.	Articles for which a valid quality rating has not yet been provided are listed in this category.	A quality parameter should be assigned according to the assessment department of the WikiProject.	see Category:Unassessed Gender studies articles

Importance assessment

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

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

Importance scale

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.	Feminism
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Queer theory
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	Girly girl
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.	Bachelor party
NA	Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.	Category:WikiProject Gender studies
???	Subject importance has not yet been assessed.	see Category:Unknown-importance Gender studies articles

Popular pages

The results of the assessment combined with information on traffic statistics for pages produces this list.

Assessment log

Assessment log

November 26, 2024 Reassessed Bell T. Ritchie (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Glenn Rowen (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Harriet E. Giles (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Les Ballets Trockadero de Monte Carlo (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Lotta Hetler James (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) November 25, 2024 Reassessed Women-only space (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t) November 24, 2024 Assessed Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t) Unisex changing rooms (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t) November 23, 2024 Reassessed LGBTQ history in Iran (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t) Sigma male (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t) November 22, 2024 Renamed LGBT history in Iran renamed to LGBTQ history in Iran. Reassessed Abortion in New Jersey (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Fareeda Kokikhel Afridi (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Manosphere (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) The Second Sex (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Women's Trade Union League (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Assessed Castle Park High School (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t) LGBTQ history in Iran (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) November 21, 2024 Reassessed Chand Bagh School (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Feminist history (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Trans chaser (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t) November 20, 2024 Reassessed Bumble (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) OkCupid (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Pantomime dame (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t) Assessed Badoo (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t) Category:Books about misogyny (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Category:Books about sexism (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Category:Gender and clothing (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Match.com (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t) Tinder (app) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t) Trans chaser (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t) Women's suffrage and Western women's fashion through the early 20th century (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)