Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Appalachia/Assessment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Line 82: Line 82:
|Most lists pertaining to Appalachia
|Most lists pertaining to Appalachia
<small>([[List of subranges of the Appalachian Mountains]])</small>
<small>([[List of subranges of the Appalachian Mountains]])</small>
|-
!colspan="3"|Flora and fauna
|''Generally not applicable''
|Plants and animals of the utmost importance to any coverage of Appalachia
|Plants and animals synonymous with certain regions of Appalachia or which have a major historical and cultural significance in Appalachia
|Plants and animals with a notable and recognizable impact on or place in Appalachian culture
<small>'''Note:''' most flora and fauna are ''not'' within this project's scope</small>
|-
|-
! colspan="3" |Geographic features
! colspan="3" |Geographic features

Revision as of 14:02, 14 February 2024

Appalachia
articles		 Importance Refresh
 Top   High   Mid   Low  ???  Total
Quality  FA 0 0 0 0 0 8
 A 0 0 0 0 0 0
 GA 0 0 0 0 0 22
B 0 0 0 0 0 115
C 0 0 0 0 0 284
Start 0 0 0 0 0 434
Stub 0 0 0 0 0 104
 FL 0 0 0 0 0 0
List 0 0 0 0 0 10
??? 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 35 53 110 234 577 1009

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Appalachia! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Appalachia related articles. 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 Appalachia}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Appalachia articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the Appalachia WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Appalachia}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Appalachia WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
This does not exist for this project yet. Perhaps you could join the project and create a peer review system?
What if I don't agree with a quality 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.
What if I don't agree with an importance rating?
If you believe an item is mis-classed or its class has since changed, please list it in the Requesting an assessment with your reasons. Please see the importance scale below and make sure your claims follow the criteria listed.
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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
Can I review my own article?
You may not rate your own articles. New articles should be added to the peer review section of assessment. Large changes to articles that may change the quality should be added to the Requesting an assessment section. Articles that may need a change in Importance status should be listed in the Importance review section.
Exception: editors who create articles and/or files can assess the following classifications: Start, Stub, List, Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, Redirect, or Template. Self-classification of "start" articles should be used sparingly as most new articles tend to be "stubs" -- the remaining classifications are procedural in nature and can be applied as apporpriate. However, if an article creator thinks the article should be C, B, A, GA, FA, or FL, they should leave it unassessed and request an assessment.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the project coordinators directly.

Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Appalachia}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Appalachia| class= }} (This is currently the only option)

While assessing articles, please rate the class with a capital letter. This will insure uniformity on the template.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Appalachia articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Quality scale

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 subranges of the Appalachian Mountains
(as of February 2024)
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:Appalachia
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Template:User WP Appalachia
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.

Importance scale

This is a fairly comprehensive table for determining an article's importance. If you have any questions, feel free to ask for advise on this project's talk page or use the Miscellaneous category alongside your best judgement

Top High Mid Low
Miscellaneous

(Can override below)

Exceptionally pivotal or necessary to the culture, history, and/or nature of Appalachia, generally requires project consensus

(Appalachia)

Reasonably important to the culture, history, and/or nature of Appalachia Made/makes a major impact on Appalachia Notable and with an impact on Appalachia
Lists Practically no list should reach Top importance, exceptions can be made through broad consensus on this project's talk page Extremely few lists which cover a limited scope of extremely important subjects. Very few lists which cover major aspects of Appalachia Most lists pertaining to Appalachia

(List of subranges of the Appalachian Mountains)

Flora and fauna Generally not applicable Plants and animals of the utmost importance to any coverage of Appalachia Plants and animals synonymous with certain regions of Appalachia or which have a major historical and cultural significance in Appalachia Plants and animals with a notable and recognizable impact on or place in Appalachian culture

Note: most flora and fauna are not within this project's scope

Geographic features Very important/historic rivers, ridges, ranges, etc.

(Appalachian Mountains)

Historic rivers, ridges, ranges, etc. and very important/historic creeks, streams, peeks, etc.

(White Mountains, Blue Ridge Mountains, Mount Mitchell)

Non-historic rivers, ridges, ranges, etc. and historic creeks, streams, peaks, etc.

(Youghiogheny River, Bull Run, Unaka Range)

Non-historic creeks, streams, peaks, etc.

(Chartiers Creek, Girty's Run, Mount Passaconaway)

Cultural and ethnic group history

(Population is NOT a factor)

Groups with an irreplaceable impact on Appalachia

(Cherokee)

Groups with a historic and major connection to Appalachia which shaped the region

(Cohee)

Groups with a history specific to but not highly major to Appalachia Most groups with a history not specifically major to Appalachian history
Regions Natural regions Generally not applicable Very few exceptional cases based on broad consensus Regions and zones with high importance to Appalachia as a region and cultural entity Most geological, topographic, meteorological, and geographic regions and zones
Political regions Cities and state-level articles foundational to Appalachian identity, history, and culture through events, industry, etc.

(Pittsburgh, West Virginia, Kentucky)

Any city within Appalachia with a population over 200,000 and very few highly historically and/or culturally significant counties, boroughs, towns, etc. and most state-level articles

(Birmingham, Tennessee)

Any city within Appalachia with a population over 90,000 and some particularly historically significant counties, boroughs, towns, etc.

(Knoxville)

Most counties, boroughs, towns, etc.

(Allegheny, Randolph, Elkins)

Industry Industries in a region or as they relate to a group which have a wide impact across the culture

(Coal mining in Appalachia)

Industries in a region or as they relate to a group, and companies of particularly great impact

(Carnegie Steel, Coal mining in Kentucky)

Historic mills, mines, and factories and companies vital to Appalachian history

(U.S. Steel)

Most individual mills, plots, factories, mines, etc.

(Mon Valley Works)

Lifestyle Generally not applicable Some select ways of Appalachian life on a large scale unique to the area Integral to Appalachian daily life in the present of historically Specifically heavily linked to daily Appalachian life
Products and objects Generally not applicable Products and items synonymous with Appalachian culture and life Products and items heavily linked to Appalachian culture and life
Art Single pieces and collections Generally not applicable Art which is synonymous with Appalachia Art which significantly ties into Appalachian culture Art which is identifiably Appalachian or is representative of Appalachia
genres or styles Genres or styles which form an irreplaceable piece of Appalachia Genres or styles which are culturally significant to Appalachian culture and history Genres or styles which are identifiable to and/or have roots in Appalachia
Events Historic events Indigenous displacement wars and conflict Major conflicts with major impacts on Appalachian history Less major conflicts in Appalachia Battles between settlers and native groups

(Battle of Fort Pitt)

Minor skirmishes pertaining to Appalachia
American Revolution Generally not applicable Major movements in Appalachia which were specifically significant to the region Battles pertaining to Appalachia and units formed from Appalachians

(Green Mountain Boys, Battle of Fort Duquesne)

Minor details of the war pertaining to Appalachia
Civil War
Rebellions Major, historically significant Appalachian rebellions. Should have wider regional impact.

(Whiskey Rebellion)

Appalachian rebellions of greater significance Most notable Appalachian rebellions
Labor-related Labor disputes or disasters with an extremely major impact on culture in Appalachia

(Battle of Blair Mountain)

Labor disputes or disasters with a particularly notable resolution Most major Appalachian labor disputes or events

(1920 Alabama coal strike)

Crime-related Generally not applicable
Other See miscellaneous
Repeating events Generally not applicable Events integral to an understanding and coverage of Appalachian culture Appalachian cultural events of great significance Most music and film festivals focusing on Appalachia
Biographies Politicians & government

(U.S., state, colonial, native leaders, etc.)

Extremely important individuals who formed Appalachia irreplaceably

(Guyasuta)

Individuals who were integral to modern Appalachia Individuals who greatly shaped the region in some way Notable individuals identifiable with an Appalachian identity and history
Political/social activists From or in Appalachia with minimal focus in Appalachia Generally not applicable Individuals with a recognizable Appalachian identity with a major, widespread impact that may define their field. Should be vital to the understanding of the region Individuals with a recognizable Appalachian identity with a less major, widespread impact Activists from or working in Appalachia with a notable impact
From or in Appalachia with a focus in Appalachia Individuals with a recognizable Appalachian identity with any coverage of Appalachia would be irrelevant without Individuals with a recognizable Appalachian identity with a major impact on Appalachian or regional culture, history, and/or life. Should be vital to the understanding of the region Individuals with a recognizable Appalachian identity with a major impact on their focus and/or history

(Katherine Sleeper Walden)

Activists from or in Appalachia with a notable impact on Appalachia
Folk heroes

(biographical and legendary)

Extremely influential folk heroes who shaped Appalachian culture Widespread and/or influential folk heroes

(Johnny Appleseed)

Notable Appalachian folk heroes

(John Henry)

Local area folk heroes
Pioneers/explorers, settlers, guides, etc. Individuals widely recognized who shaped Appalachian history and culture, generally also folk heroes

(Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett)

Identifiable with and vital to Appalachia in an irreplaceable historic role Foundational figures to a region or those who achieved certain great distinctions

(Meshach Browning)

Most pioneers, explorers, frontiersmen, etc.
Academics Generally not applicable Individuals with a recognizable Appalachian identity which Appalachian identity relies upon the contributions of Individuals with a recognizable Appalachian identity with a major contribution
Artists Musicians Musicians who most greatly contributed to the foundation of Appalachian culture through folk or other means Musicians who illuminated Appalachia to outsiders and/or contributed greatly to Appalachian culture Artists who showcased Appalachia or contributed to Appalachian culture in a major way

(John Denver)

Artists identifiable as finding roots, inspiration, or creativity through Appalachia
Physical artists

(Visual artists, photographers, non-journalist writers, etc.)

Artists whose work is a definitive and integral piece of Appalachian culture who are unparalleled in their focus by other works Artists who are representative of Appalachian culture and/or local cultures. Generally those whose work is a recognized piece of the culture
Media

(Newspaper, Radio, Television, etc.)

Journalists Generally not applicable Journalists who made a quantifiable change to Appalachia in a significant way Journalists who expanded outside knowledge of the region to a great extent Media personalities and individuals who made significant contributions to Appalachia or were locally influential
Sports Generally not applicable
Entertainment
Athletics Generally not applicable Appalachian athletes and personnel who made significant structural changes Appalachian athletes and related personnel who made very major achievements Athletes and athletic personnel specifically identifiable through Appalachia
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Appalachia/Assessment&oldid=1207311993"