Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Assessment Department of the Architecture WikiProject. This group focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's architecture articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program.

Assessment is done in a distributed system (with many people and automated "bots") when values are included for the two "parameters" in the {{Architecture}} project banner template, as described in the syntax below. The different values cause the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Architecture articles by quality and Category:Architecture articles by importance.

Shortcut: WP:ARCHA

Contents 1 FAQ 2 Assessment instructions 2.1 Quality assessment 2.2 Importance assessment 2.3 Related projects 3 Participants 4 Requests for assessment 5 Requests for A-Class status

Architecture articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	11	13	20	2	4	50
	FL		15	6	14	9	44
	A	8		1			9
	GA	9	19	38	36	39	141
	B	185	161	198	50	100	694
	C	22	20	41	25	88	196
	Start	224	504	955	433	1104	3220
	Stub	38	121	347	679	3702	4887
	List	3	6	12	36	210	267
	Assessed	500	859	1618	1275	5256	9508
	Unassessed	4	7	6	6	2395	2418
	Total	504	866	1624	1281	7651	11926

[edit] FAQ

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings? 

The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.

2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 

Just add {{Architecture}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a {{Architecture}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do? 

Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).

4. Who can assess articles? 

Anyone, as long as you are prepared to defend your decision

5. How do I rate an article? 

Check the article grading scheme and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.

6. Can I request that someone else rate an article? 

Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

7. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.

8. Aren't the ratings subjective? 

Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!

9. What if I have a question not listed here? 

If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, leave a message on the talk page.

[edit] Assessment instructions

The {{Architecture}} template may already exist on the talk page of an article, and anyone can add the template to a talk page. There are two values that can be used in the template for rating an article. Remember that these ratings are not absolute and can be changed at any time. The quality and importance of a topic is to be considered in the wide context of Architecture in all regions of the world throughout all of recorded history. The main criteria are suitability of the topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia and complete citation of source information.

[edit] Quality assessment

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

Basic template syntax

{{Architecture | class=Stub | ...}}

• The word "class" to start with a lowercase c. Values can be Stub, stub or STUB, for example

The following values for "class= " may be used:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Architecture articles
  • Only for articles that are currently listed as featured articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Architecture articles
  • Only used for articles that have successfuly passed through the A-Class review)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Architecture articles
  • Used only for articles that are currently listed as good articles)

• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Architecture articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Architecture articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Architecture articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Architecture pages)

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

WikiProject article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is characterized by a thorough and representative survey of relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended). Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. 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 (see summary style).	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.	Tourette Syndrome (as of March 2009)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. 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) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate through 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. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions and "alt" text if necessary. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. 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.	Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (as of February 2009)
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed 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: Shortcut: WP:A? Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. 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, WikiProject Films).	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.	Batman (1989 film) (as of October 2008)
GA	The article has attained good article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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 May 2009)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. 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 it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way.It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, 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, 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.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of September 2007)
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. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	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.	Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008)
Start	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	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. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	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.	Cuthwine (as of August 2008)
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)

[edit] Importance assessment

Basic syntax

{{Architecture| class=stub | importance=Low}}

• The word "importance" to start with a lowercase i. Values start with Uppercase, eg. Low

Addtional guidelines from the National Register of Historic Places:

Distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction

For more information, refer to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic

[edit] Related projects

Two other templates can be used to replace {{Architecture}}, as appropriate:

{{Planning}}

Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:PlanningUrban studies and planning articles	WikiProject Urban studies and planning	(Rated NA-Class)
	Architecture portal v • d • e This page is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.  NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

{{Landscape}}

This article covers subjects relevant to Landscape architecture

[edit] Participants

• Dogears (talk · contribs) 20:08, 6 December 2006
• Mcginnly | Natter 23:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
• Badbilltucker 21:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Amandajm 20 December 2006
• Hand of Bjesomar 09:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Uneirlys 21:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Internazionale 20:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for 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 at the top:

1. Serapeum, I've done quite a lot of work on the article --- can someone check it out, please? Campelli (talk) 21:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
2. Tower Hill Water Tower New article, needs an assessment. Cheers! Small-town hero (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Westin Book Cadillac Hotel Needs a quality assesment. Thanks for any input St8fan (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Topkapı Palace - Gryffindor 00:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
5. All Saints' Church, Wittenberg - Currently a GA nominee, Religion Project was requested to review, but I think your group's input would probably be more useful. John Carter (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Andres Mignucci Major rewrite. Would like your critical assessment, rating and importance to give it direction.Nonza (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Henry Klumb Article on one of Puerto Rico's most important architects. Would like your critical assessment, rating and importance to give it direction.Nonza (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Outhouse Did an almost complete rewrite. Lots more authority; wider and better content. I put a lot of thought and research into a humble subject. I think it was worthwhile, but would like your critical assessment.
9. Chicago Board of Trade Building: on National Register of Historic Places and National Historic Landmarks list, recently featured in Did You Know, strong content, 20+ notations, multiple graphics, a recent WikiProject Chicago Collaboration of the Week ChicagoPimp 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
   1. Done. --Mcginnly | Natter 02:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
10. Arch of Hadrian --Nefasdicere 22:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. Done --Mcginnly | Natter 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
11. Golubac fortress - There are still gaps and questions about a few parts, but I doubt that'll change any time soon. While I know it's not start class anymore, I'm not really sure what it would be, though I'm guessing it's at the level of needing an actual peer review-assessment. Which one should I be going for? -Bbik 03:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
    1. Done --Mcginnly | Natter 18:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
12. Appreciate the comments on an expanded stub - now an article - on Thomas Garner, the Victorian Architect and partner of G.F. Bodley for almost 30 years. It is now has an unassessed B rating. I do not know how to add pictures (can't take from other websites such as Google images?) Would appreciate an importance rating.Keoghse 06:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
13. Theatre of Pompey This article has grown considerably and could use an assesment at this time. Although there are still some gaps and citations needed it is now ready for rating. --Amadscientist 00:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    1. Done --Antischmitz 12:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
14. Tilt up: newly added to project. Besides some outstanding references, what else is needed? Vagary 09:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
    1. Done --Antischmitz 13:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
15. InterContinental Chicago - appreciate a lookover. ThanksxC | ☎ 09:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
16. Buildings and architecture of Philadelphia - Interested in knowing I made the right improvements, and that the information is correct. Medvedenko 03:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
17. The O2 No rating since splitting from Millennium Dome. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) (review) 16:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
18. Outhouse This is rated as START. It is long and comprehensive. It has sixty footnotes. It is also written from an international perspective. It includes useful architectural, cultural and contextual information. I believe it is still underrated. I can't believe that this isn't a "C" or better. Please reassess. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Stan
19. Jesuit Missions of the Chiquitos New article, needs assessment. bamse (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Requests for A-Class status

If you have made significant changes to a B-class or GA-class article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please list it at Wikiproject Architecture Peer Review stating in the introduction you would like the article reviewed to see if it is A-class.

1. World Trade Center -- I've assessed it as a B-class article since it has not had a review, but believe it to be an A-class article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Upholder (talk • contribs)
   1. As above - you need to submit to WP:ARCHPR for review of B-class articles. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)