Wikipedia:WikiProject Apple Inc./Assessment

WP:APPLEASSESS

This is the assessment department of WikiProject Apple Inc. Its goal is to assess the quality of Wikipedia's Apple Inc. articles. Article ratings are used to help recognize excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Apple Inc.}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Apple Inc. articles by quality.

Assessment

Guidelines to Assessment

Apple Inc. articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		1	2				3
FL			1				1
GA	2	6	13	7			28
B	15	42	50	60			167
C	5	80	164	256		3	508
Start		33	134	559		74	800
Stub		2	13	265		212	492
List	2	4	13	23	1	2	45
Category					262		262
Draft					22		22
Disambig					10		10
File					220		220
Project					30		30
Redirect		2	2	10	546		560
Template					146		146
Assessed	24	170	392	1,180	1,237	291	3,294
Total	24	170	392	1,180	1,237	291	3,294
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 9,546			Ω = 4.78

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.	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: 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 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: 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.	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 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.	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

WikiProject article importance scheme
v
t
e
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.	Kindergarten
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Factory Acts
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	0.999...
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.	G cell

Backlog

To reduce (or eliminate) our backlog of over 500 unassessed articles, WikiProject Apple Inc. is holding a backlog elimination drive. The drive will end June 10; please make sure you know how to assess. The coordinator for this drive is mono; direct any questions to him. The backlog elimination drive is open to all, and you do not need to be a member of WikiProject Apple Inc. to participate. However, you may want to consider joining, as membership has its benefits.^{[clarification needed]}

Guidelines

Assessment tags are placed on the talk pages of articles to categorize and rate articles. Many (576) articles that are tagged with our template, {{WikiProject Apple Inc.}}, are not rated. We need you to assess all these articles!

Don't create extra work. Participants should not add an unnassessed tag to an article, then assess it for credit.
Log completed assessments in the Running Totals section. If you complete a assessment for an article, don't forget to list it so that you can get credit for the edit.
No rubber-stamping of articles. Be thorough and complete in your assessments, and make sure all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed. If you see any glaring problems with the article you are assessing, fix as many as you can before moving on to the next one.
Have fun!

Assessing an article

For a guide on how assess an article, see here. Note that GA-class, A-class, and FA-class require a review, so you cannot tag an article as GA-class, A-class, or FA-class, unless it has already been reviewed. Also, remember to assess the importance of the article as well. We will check your assessments to make sure they comply with the standards; if they fail to comply, you will lose the assessment for that article, which would make it up for grabs for another user to assess.

Awards

Awards will be given out at the conclusion of the backlog elimination drive. The requirements shown below are subject to change.

At least 1 article assessed: An apple with a bite taken out of it.

At least 15 articles assessed: The Modest Barnstar.

At least 35 articles assessed: The Working Man's Barnstar.

At least 55 articles assessed: The Cleanup Barnstar.

At least 75 articles assessed: The Tireless Contributor Barnstar.

At least 95 articles assessed: The Surreal Barnstar.

At least 115 articles assessed: All Around Amazing Barnstar.

The most assessed artices: The Golden Wiki Award, which will be awarded to two users.

And remember, the ultimate winner here is Wikipedia.

Running Totals

Directions

Please log entries in the following format:

=====~~~=====
{{Divhide|{{User|Mono}}}}
{{Div col|cols=3}}
#{{completed}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Disk_Transfer&diff=prev&oldid=363814792]
#{{completed}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Dylan&diff=prev&oldid=363814691]
#{{completed}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Disk_Image&diff=prev&oldid=363814550]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_DOS&diff=prev&oldid=363814425]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Apple_Certified_System_Administrator&diff=prev&oldid=363814295]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:AnyLogic&diff=prev&oldid=363814139]
# [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alpine_(e-mail_client)&diff=prev&oldid=363813963]
{{Div col end}}
*Total articles: ''3''
{{Divhide|end}}

Participants

Totals

Airplaneman ✈

Airplaneman (talk · contribs)

Completed old id assessment
Completed old id assessment
Completed old id assessment
Completed old id assessment
Completed old id assessment
Completed old id assessment

Have decided to stop logging them after assessing about 50 today. Going for 0 unassessed! Airplaneman ✈ 01:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This link provides you with my latest submission: around 30% should be assessments, 35% should be de-listings (for example, cross-platform apps and video games, in which case I reassessed them to their appropriate WikiProject(s), usually WP:COMP), 15% should be fixes to the articles being assessed, and 20% of the edits should be on other subjects. (Do ctrl+F and search "assess" to find out how many total articles I have assessed - last count: 6+359=365 assessed. As I have removed the WP:APPLE template from many, search "assess for WP:APPLE" see the drive total [submitted below: currently 179+6=185]) I think, after assessing everything, we should run through the C class articles and do B class checklists, as many B class articles were demoted to C class following mono's addition of a B class checklist to the assessment template (which, by the way, I think is great!) Airplaneman ✈ 22:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Last update: 16:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) (final submission, category empty)[reply]
Total articles: 179 Apple Inc., 365 total