Wikipedia:WikiProject Greater Manchester/Assessment
- Front Page • (Talk)
- Aims
- Article alerts
- Participants
- Did you know?
- Successes and examples
- Popular Pages
- Articles about Greater Manchester that currently have issues needing resolution:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Merseyside
This is the assessment page for the Greater Manchester WikiProject.
Greater Manchester articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 8 | 10 | 10 | 19 | 47 | ||
FL | 1 | 3 | 14 | 18 | |||
GA | 6 | 14 | 29 | 41 | 1 | 91 | |
B | 16 | 34 | 57 | 108 | 6 | 221 | |
C | 24 | 47 | 151 | 375 | 54 | 651 | |
Start | 94 | 344 | 1,756 | 201 | 2,395 | ||
Stub | 15 | 89 | 1,253 | 125 | 1,482 | ||
List | 2 | 5 | 40 | 169 | 17 | 233 | |
Category | 1 | 1,221 | 1,222 | ||||
Disambig | 12 | 12 | |||||
File | 30 | 30 | |||||
Portal | 2 | 2 | |||||
Project | 5 | 5 | |||||
Template | 73 | 73 | |||||
NA | 1 | 1 | 6 | 26 | 75 | 109 | |
Other | 4 | 4 | |||||
Assessed | 57 | 221 | 730 | 3,761 | 1,422 | 404 | 6,595 |
Unassessed | 2 | 1 | 92 | 95 | |||
Total | 57 | 221 | 730 | 3,763 | 1,423 | 496 | 6,690 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 24,316 | Ω = 4.98 |
Quality scale
[edit]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.
|
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. | Shaw and Crompton (as of 06 July 2008) |
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:
|
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 Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Greater Manchester (as of 3 January 2008) |
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. | Manchester (as of 30 October 2007) |
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:
|
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. | Didsbury (as of 21 October 2007) |
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
|
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. | Manchester Metrolink (as of 24 October 2007 |
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. | Bolton (as of 06 July 2008) |
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:
|
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. | Crompton Moor (as of 10 October 2007) |
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. | Ladybarn (as of 29 August 2007) |
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]Label | Criteria |
---|---|
Top | Articles describing the major structural elements of Greater Manchester, or subjects of UK or international importance Examples: Manchester, Salford, metropolitan boroughs, major urban areas, former county or municipal boroughs, Manchester Airport, Manchester University. |
High | Articles describing the major infrastructure of Greater Manchester, or subjects of significant importance to Greater Manchester or North West England Examples: crown courts, large stations (both current and historical), towns that are not former boroughs, parliamentary constituencies, Grade I listed buildings. |
Mid | Articles describing the minor infrastructure of Greater Manchester Examples: medium sized stations, large libraries, magistrates courts, electoral wards, Grade II* listed buildings, nationally known schools, civil parishes, villages, notable localities. |
Low | Articles describing subjects of local interest Examples: suburbs, small stations/metro stops, branch libraries, leisure centres, Grade II listed buildings, local parks. |
How to assess articles
[edit]To assess an article, add |class= and |importance= to the WikiProject banner on the article's talk page to get this:
- {{WikiProject Greater Manchester|class=|importance=}}
To assess the quality of the article, add either stub, start, C, B, GA, A, or FA after class=.
- Example:
- {{WikiProject Greater Manchester|class=GA|importance=}}
To assess the importance of the article, add low, mid, high, or top after importance=.
- Example:
- {{WikiProject Greater Manchester|class=GA|importance=high}}
- The following is a list of parameters for different quality ratings and importance ratings
FA |
A |
GA |
B |
C |
Start |
Stub |
Needed |
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Greater Manchester articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Greater Manchester articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Greater Manchester articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Greater Manchester articles)
- C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Greater Manchester articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Greater Manchester articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Greater Manchester articles)
- Needed (for articles that do not yet exist but have been identified as subjects that should be covered; adds articles to Category:Needed-Class Greater Manchester articles)
Top |
High |
Mid |
Low |
??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Greater Manchester articles)
- High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Greater Manchester articles)
- Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Greater Manchester articles)
- Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Greater Manchester articles)
- Unassessed (any article not rated for importance is automatically added to the Category:Unassessed Greater Manchester articles.)
Requesting an assessment
[edit]If you are not certain how an article should be graded, or want an impartial view, the best place to make a request is on the wikiproject talk page. Due to the level of activity on that page, requests are more likely to be dealt with quickly there.
Log
[edit]December 1, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- Pilkington, Greater Manchester (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
[edit]- Burn It (TV series) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Category:People by populated place in Greater Manchester (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Removed
[edit]November 30, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]November 29, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- 2018 Moss Side shooting (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
November 28, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- 2018 Moss Side shooting (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Amanda Barrie (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
November 27, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- The Mancunion (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
November 26, 2024
[edit]Renamed
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- Baggy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
- Category:Footballers from Bolton (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Joseph Parker vs. Derek Chisora II (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Unknown-Class. (rev · t)