Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Biography
General information
Announcements
Departments
Work groups and subprojects
Things you can do
Biography article statistics
Shortcuts

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Biography. This department focuses on assessing the quality and priority of Wikipedia's biography articles. A quality rating estimates how close an article comes to a professional standard. The priority or importance rating estimates the relative importance of a subject when compared to other biographical articles.; this rating can help project members to prioritise editing work. These quality and priority rating systems were established by the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team, and are customised by WikiProject organisers.

An article's rating is set in the class parameter of the {{WikiProject Biography}} project banner on the article's talk page. Setting the class value causes the article to be listed in the corresponding sub-categories under Category:Biography articles by quality, and to lists generated by bots such as.

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
How can I request an article assessment?
Add it to the assessment request queue below. If you'd like someone to write some constructive feedback about the article, you can request a peer review from editors outside WikiProject Biography. At present, WikiProject Biography's peer review is backlogged.
Who can rate an article?
Anyone can rate a biographical article, but if you revised an article enough to change its potential rating, or if you have a conflict of interest, someone else should review it. A rating higher than B-class requires a more formal review process.
What if I disagree with a rating?
Ask the reviewer what they think the article needs (preferably on the article's talk page). You can also (re)list the article in the assessment request queue, or directly ask a WikiProject Biography member to review it.
Are the ratings subjective?
Reviewers are expected to follow Wikipedia's article quality grading criteria.
How can I begin assessing articles?
See "How to assess an article" below.

Light bulb iconB If you have a question not answered here, please feel free to ask on the assessment talk page.

How to assess an article

[edit]

Read the criteria in the quality scale, and determine which grade best reflects the state of the article. If the quality grade you chose differs from the one on the article's talk page, set the grade by changing the class parameter for each WikiProject banner, like this: 

{{WikiProject Biography |class=Start}}

If the article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography but does not have a {{WikiProject Biography}} banner on its talk page, add the banner.

You can find articles to rate in Category:Unassessed biography articles. This is a list of talk pages that have a banner with an incomplete assessment.

There's more to article assessment than just quality and priority grades. See {{WikiProject Biography}} for complete instructions.

Class parameter

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Biography}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class biography articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class biography articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class biography articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class biography articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class biography articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class biography articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class biography articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class biography articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class biography articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class biography pages) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class biography pages) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class biography pages) Draft
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class biography pages)  FM
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class biography pages) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class biography pages) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class biography pages) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class biography pages) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed biography articles) ???

The quality rating should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

It is not necessary to add a class parameter to talk pages that do not correspond to ordinary articles. For categories, disambiguation pages, redirects, etc., the class is implicit.

Priority parameters

[edit]

{{WikiProject Biography}} has separate priority parameters for specialised sub-projects and work groups.

{{WikiProject Biography}}-tagged talk pages that have an active general |priority= or |importance= parameter should be changed to one or more of |a&e-priority=, |filmbio-priority=, |musician-priority=, |military-priority=, |peerage-priority=, |politician-priority=, |royalty-priority=, |s&a-priority= or |sports-priority=, depending on which work groups the article is tagged for. Please refer to Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for further guidance.

WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers has its own priority scale; please use it. For all other work groups and WikiProjects listed here, use WikiProject Biography's priority scale.

The valid values for all priority parameters are: Top, High, Mid, and Low.

Articles for each work group and sub-project where the priority has not yet been assessed are found in Category:Unknown-importance biography articles. Do not use priority parameters for non-articles (i.e. redirects, disambiguation pages, categories, etc.).

Quality scale

[edit]
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. Mary Shelley
(as of March 2019)
 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. Timeline of Jane Austen
(as of March 2008)
 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. Milla Jovovich
(as of June 2008)
 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. Theodore Kaczynski
(as of March 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. Roy Lichtenstein
(as of March 2019)
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. Mark Gerban
(as of March 2019)
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. Samuel Beardsley
(as of May 2008)
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. Urraca of Castile, Queen of Portugal
(as of May 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 mycologists
(as of March 2019)

Priority scale

[edit]

Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the biography falls under. An article judged to be "Top-importance" in one context may be only "Mid-importance" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it).

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top High probability that non-Historians would look this up. Limited to the top 200 biographies. Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world. For instance, Einstein, brilliant physicist, but his theories have affected people outside of physics and in many other countries besides his nation of origin and several generations. His ideas have changed the way people think. No member should give this rating to any biography without first getting Project approval from the other members. Albert Einstein
High Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin. Patrick Henry
Mid Important in their discipline. John Seigenthaler, Sr.
Low Subject is notable in their main discipline. Morena Baccarin

Requesting an assessment

[edit]

Any user may perform an article assessment. No special permissions or tools are needed, although User:Evad37/rater is a recommended tool. However, if you prefer help from a WikiProject Biography volunteer to rate an article, please feel free to list it below.

This is a quality rating only. Reviewers usually do not comment on the article. For more detailed feedback, you can request a peer review.

Articles submitted to the list below can be rated up to B-class. For higher assessments, see Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

Reviewers: For general assessment instructions, see "How to assess an article" above. After you assess an article, please delete it from the list.

If you checked for B-class readiness, please add a short section titled "B-class review" to the article's talk page. If you do not believe the article meets the criteria for B-class, explain what improvements it needs in order to pass. If it passes, confirm in writing that you checked the article for all B-class criteria, and that it passed.

Requests

[edit]

Edit this section and add request to the END of the list. Use format of * [[ article name]] brief description. ~~~~

Statistics

[edit]

Current status

[edit]
See also: Category:Biography articles by quality
Biography articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Core Other ??? Total
FA 35 1,634 1,669
FL 205 205
FM 616 616
A 1 131 132
GA 41 8,388 8,429
B 98 40,602 40,700
C 33 172,778 172,811
Start 1 765,483 765,484
Stub 1 1,030,128 1 1,030,130
List 8,202 8,202
Category 12,409 12,409
Disambig 3,908 3,908
File 31,292 31,292
Project 214 214
Redirect 3 44,874 44,877
Template 3,924 3,924
NA 15 15
Assessed 213 2,124,803 1 2,125,017
Unassessed 23,995 23,995
Total 213 2,148,798 1 2,149,012
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,839,863 Ω = 5.37


Assessment log

[edit]
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log

Worklist

[edit]
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/Biography articles by quality
This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.

Cleanup listings

[edit]

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Weekly biography listings here. Please be patient while lists load as there are over 1.6 million articles. Run on Tuesdays, generated by CleanupWorklistBot.

Biography assessment backlog - Call for Volunteers

[edit]

To help reduce the long-standing backlog of biography articles waiting for assessment, consider adopting your "favorite" alphabet letter and working there. You can click on a letter to be linked directly to it and see how long it is. In the table below, just replace the ★ with your Username. There can be more than one person per letter. Teamwork really helps! We recommend putting a link on your user page or in another easy-to-find location so that you can more easily work on your letter.

Call for Volunteers

WikiProject Biography needs your help!

  • View the current backlog at Unassessed biography articles.
  • An easy way to volunteer - pick your favorite letter of the alphabet and signup here.
  • Have fun assessing articles with the Rater assessment tool.

More than one person can work on the same alphabet letter, so Be bold.

Rater assessment tool

Fun helping article assessments

  • Learn more about the Rater tool here.
  • After installing, try it out on a few articles.
  • While not perfect, Rater improves the article accessment process.
  • Use the shortcut keys to speedup assessments.
  • Rater tool be used across the board to improve Wikipedia articles.

➢ Happy assessing!

Adopt-a-letter
Alphabet Volunteer
A User:Darwin Naz, User:Adavidb, User:The person who loves reading
B User:Adavidb
C User:Newmila
D User:Puddleglum2.0
E User:Wizardman
F User:AmericanAir88
G User:Pseudoname1
H User:Suntooooth
I ★
J User:Firstclass306
K User:Lepricavark
L ★
M ★
Adopt-a-letter
Alphabet Volunteer
N ★
O User:EmilySarah99
P User:GreatSculptorIthas
Q User:Tcr25
R ★
S User:Sahaib3005
T User:Yerkes-Dodson, User:Majavah
U User:Tcr25
V User:Nannochloropsis
W User:Nerd1a4i
X User:Sbbarker19
Y User:Sbbarker19
Z User:Sbbarker19
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment&oldid=1254992522"