Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Idols task force/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Idol series WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about the Idol series. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 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 {{WikiProject Television}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Idols articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

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 Idol series 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, 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.

Idol series articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Low	Other	Total
Stub	32	37	69
Other	74		74
Assessed	106	37	143
Total	106	37	143

We are rating articles for quality using the Idols articles by quality scale (based on this) and for importance using the Release Version Criteria scale. Once articles are rated for either, they will show up on Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Idol series articles by quality. To rate an article, add the following next to the {{WikiProject Television}} tag:

{{WikiProject Idol series
| class = [X]
| importance = [Y]
}}

where..

[X] = Stub, Start, B, A, GA, or FA (also NA, Disambig, Cat, Template, or List)
[Y] = Low, Mid, High, or Top

Please be sure to capitalize!

Note: You should not assign any article GA, A, or FA grades arbitrarily. These grades must pass through official Wikipedia channels.

Assessment requests

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.

~~Mussarat Abbas -- Showman16 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)~~ Done. MissMJ (talk) 15:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haley Reinhart -- Rcul4u998 14:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme
Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light.
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.	Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.
B {{B-Class}}	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.	Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly 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	Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.	Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful.
List {{List-Class}}	This page is a list.
NA {{NA-Class}}	The page is not an article and does not require a rating.
Needed {{Needed-Class}}	The article does not exist and needs to be created.
Category {{Cat-Class}}	This page is a category related to WikiProject Idol Series.
Template {{Template-Class}}	This page is a template related to WikiProject Idol Series.
Disambig {{Disambig-Class}}	This page is a disambiguation page related to WikiProject Series.

Importance scale

Remember, importance is a rather subjective rating and indicates the relative importances of an article in the scope of this project. It is not a measure of personal importance of a subject to you. If you would like to propose changes to the following guidelines, you may do so on the talk page.

Rating	Criteria	Examples
Top	The article is of the highest importance within the scope of this project. This includes articles about regional Idol series and current Idol seasons.	American Idol, Canadian Idol, American Idol (season 7)
High	This article is of high importance within the scope of this project. This includes winners of regional Idol series, their debut singles and albums, past Idol seasons, and highly successful Idol contestants and their work.	Kelly Clarkson, Jesus, Take the Wheel, American Idol (season 6), Jennifer Hudson, Daughtry (album)
Mid	This article is of medium importance within the scope of this project. This includes Top 10 contestants of regional Idol series, as well as hosts and judges.	Simon Cowell, Ryan Seacrest, Jessica Garlick, Ben Mulroney
Low	This article is of low importances within the scope of this project. This includes any remaining contestants and their work, Idol specials, spin-offs, and compilation albums.	Sundance Head, Idol Gives Back, From Justin to Kelly, American Idol compilation series

Assessment log

You may access the assessment log here.

Worklist

You may access the worklist table here.