Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Firefly task force/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Menu (edit · changes)
Things you can do (edit)

Wikiproject Firefly current projects

  • Add verifiable sources to major articles.
  • Get this WikiProject organized
  • Write article templates
  • Assess quality of articles

Articles to be written:

  • ?

Articles to be expanded/improved/cleaned up:

Featured Article drive:

  • ?

Good Article drive:

Under Peer Review:

Discussions

AfDs:

Firefly article statistics (view full worklist)

This list is generated automatically every night around 10 PM EST.

Firefly articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High NA ??? Total
B 1 6 7
C 1 4 10 15
Start 9 17 26
Stub 5 5
List 1 1
Category 1 1
File 3 3
Project 5 5
Redirect 45 45
Template 2 2
Other 1 1
Assessed 2 13 57 39 111
Total 2 13 57 39 111
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 241 Ω = 4.55

Welcome to the assessment department of the Firefly WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Firefly 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 {{WPFirefly}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Firefly articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
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 Firefly WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WPFirefly}} project banner on its talk page: 

{{WPFirefly
|class=
|importance=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

[edit]
Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
FA
{{FA-Class}} 		Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. None
A
{{A-Class}} 		Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Firefly (TV series)
GA
{{GA-Class}} 		The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. Serenity
B
{{B-Class}} 		Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. Hoban Washburne
Start
{{Start-Class}} 		The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. For example an article on Kaylee might cover her personality well, but be weak on back story. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
 Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. Zoë Washburne
Stub
{{Stub-Class}} 		The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Tim Minear
Needed
{{Needed-Class}} 		The article does not exist and needs to be created.     Bellflower: A Firefly Fanfilm (http://bellflower.sigil777.com)

Importance

[edit]

Importance must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-importance" in one context may be only "Mid-importance" in another. The criteria used for rating article importance 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).

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 probably warrant inclusion in V0.5, V1.0 and other releases. A "Top-importance" article for the history of Poland would be a reasonable candidate for inclusion, but most "Top-importance" articles on Polish kings & queens would probably not be included in early releases. Nevertheless such ranking within a subject area is very helpful in deciding which articles are included first as the scope of the Wikipedia 1.0 project expands. Quality articles which are not considered to be on topics important enough for inclusion on V0.5 will be held in a held nominations page, ready for inclusion as the scope expands.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia. High probability that non-Browncoats would look this up. The film Serenity
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the encyclopaedia. Subject is notable or significant within the fan community, but not necessarily outside it List of Firefly episodes
Mid Subject fills in more minor details, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Companion
Low Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial. The role-playing game Serenity

Requesting an assessment

[edit]

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

[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.


December 26, 2024

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

December 25, 2024

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

December 24, 2024

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

December 23, 2024

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

December 22, 2024

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 21, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 20, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 19, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Worklist

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

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Television/Firefly_task_force/Assessment&oldid=1156120163"