FamilySearch Wiki:Article assessmentEdit This Page
From FamilySearch Wiki
The following system is used to assess the quality and importance of an article on a particular topic.
The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors. Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made.
|Class||Criteria||Reader's experience||Editing suggestions||Example|
|FA||The article has attained featured article status.
|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.||
(as of December 2009)
|A||The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
|Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.||Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help.||
(as of March 2010)
|GA||The article has attained good article status.
|Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.||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.||
(as of November 2009)
|B||The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.||
(as of November 2009)
|C||The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
|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 address cleanup issues.||
(as of November 2009)
|Start||An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.||Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.||
(as of November 2006)
|Stub||A very basic description of the topic.
|Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.||Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.||
(as of July 2009)
|FL||The article has attained featured list status.
|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.||
(as of February 2009)
|List||Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 FamilySearch Wiki articles, appropriately named and organized.||
(as of June 2007)
WikiProject quality assessments
The quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles.
There is a separate scale for rating articles for importance or priority, which is unrelated to the quality scale . Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope.
|Top||Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.||Australia|
|High||Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.||Manchester United F.C.|
|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.||Chrono Cross|
By "priority" or "importance" of topics, we generally mean to indicate the level of expectation or desire that the topic should be covered in the Research Wiki.
WikiProject importance assessments
Within a WikiProject, importance or priority must be regarded as a relative term.If importance values are applied within a specific project, these only reflect the perceived importance to that project. An article judged to be "Top-Importance" in one WikiProject's context may be only "Low-Importance" for another WikiProject.
Consider a hierarchy such as History -> History of Europe -> History of Poland -> Polish kings and queens. An article labeled as "Top-Importance" for the subject of history would almost certainly warrant inclusion in all general releases. A "Top-Importance" article for the history of Poland would be a reasonable candidate for inclusion, but some "Top-Importance" articles on Polish kings & queens may not be included in early releases.
Ranking within a subject area is very helpful in deciding which articles are included first as the scope of the expands.
- This page was last modified on 16 August 2013, at 15:37.
- This page has been accessed 1,342 times.
Share Your Opinion!
The Community Council Selection Committee is now accepting recommendations for potential council vacancies.Recommendations Page