{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Gaga articles by quality statistics}}
Welcome to the assessment department of the Gaga WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Lady Gaga 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 Gaga}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Gaga articles by quality and Category:Gaga articles by importance, 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 the Gaga 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.
- 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.
Instructions[]
Quality assessments[]
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Gaga}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Gaga| ... | class=??? | ...}}
| Template:FA-Class |
| Template:FL-Class |
| Template:A-Class |
| Template:GA-Class |
| Template:B-Class |
| Template:C-Class |
| Template:List-Class |
| Template:Start-Class |
| Template:Stub-Class |
| ??? |
| Template:Needed-Class |
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Gaga articles)
- FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Gaga articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Gaga articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Gaga articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Gaga articles)
- C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Gaga articles)
- List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Gaga articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Gaga articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Gaga 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 Gaga articles)
Template:-
| Template:Template-Class |
| Template:Disambig-Class |
| Template:Cat-Class |
| Template:NA-Class |
For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:
- Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Gaga articles)
- Dab or Disambig (for disambiguation pages; add pages to Category:Disambig-Class Gaga articles)
- Cat or Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Gaga articles)
- NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Gaga pages)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Gaga articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Gaga articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.
Quality scale[]
| 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. | L'incoronazione di Poppea (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. | Cologne War (as of October 2009) |
||
 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. | Usain Bolt (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. | KV55 (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. | Architecture of Denmark (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. | Real analysis (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. | Geodia gibberosa (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. | Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (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 Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | List of aikidoka (as of June 2007) |
Importance assessment[]
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Gaga}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Gaga| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
| width=40px Template:Top-Importance |
| Template:High-Importance |
| Template:Mid-Importance |
| Template:Low-Importance |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - The article is about one of the core topics of Gaga. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Gaga articles
- High - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Gaga. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Gaga articles
- Mid - The article is about a topic within the Gaga field that may or may not be commonly known outside the Gaga community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Gaga articles
- Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the Gaga field and is not generally common knowledge outside the community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Gaga articles
- Unknown - Any article which has not yet been assessed on the importance scale is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance Gaga articles.
Importance scale[]
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | The article is one of the core topics about Gaga. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Gaga article. | A reader who is not involved in the Gaga field will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. | Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. | Gaga |
| Template:High-importance | The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding Gaga. | |||
| Template:Mid-importance | The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of Gaga. | Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. | Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand Gaga. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in the history of Gaga will be rated in this level. | |
| Template:Low-importance | The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Gaga | Few readers outside the Gaga field or that are no tGaga students may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. | Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of the Gaga, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most infrastructure of Gaga. |
Requesting an assessment[]
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.
Assessment log[]
| Gaga articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Gaga articles by quality log}}