Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography
General information (edit · changes)
Announcements
Departments
Work groups
Things you can do (edit)
Biography article statistics

This list is generated automatically on alternate nights.
view full worklist

Biography
articles		 Importance
Top None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 21 533 554
Featured list FL 67 67
A 2 21 23
Good article GA 26 1154 1180
B 114 14435 14549
C 34 2181 2215
Start 1 119117 119118
Stub 351536 351536
List 254 254
Assessed 198 489298 489496
Unassessed 77928 77928
Total 198 567226 567424

Welcome to the assessment department of the Biography WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Biography 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.

Category:Biography articles by quality serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. Filling in a rating in the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template on the talk page of an article causes the name of that article to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Biography articles by quality.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get an article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Biography 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!
How may I begin assessing articles? 
Assessment may be done through a variety of ways, but the most efficient is through use of the MetaData article assessment script.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

[edit] Instructions on how to assess a Biography article

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed biography articles. At present, there are over 50,000 biography articles that need assessment (e.g., that need to have a class inserted in the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template).

Biography articles to be assessed have some aspects of the {{WPBiography}} template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. First, give yourself access to the MetaData article assessment script by following the instructions at MetaData. Next, select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed biography articles. Then, look over the article in anticipation of filling out the parameters of the {{WPBiography}} template. Finally, select the appropriate answers for the MetaData script. You will be brought to the talk page where you may complete the assessment.

[edit] Class parameter

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

[edit] Priority parameter

The following values may be used for the priority parameter:

  • Top
  • High
  • Mid
  • Low

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 priority scale below. Note that the priority is used on the workgroup lists only.

[edit] Core parameter

The template also has a core=yes parameter for core articles only, as selected by the Core Biographies team.

[edit] Quality scale

WikiProject Biography article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 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. Mary Shelley
(as of June 2008)
Featured list FL
{{FL-Class}}		 The article has attained Featured list status. Timeline of Jane Austen
(as of March 2008)
A
{{A-Class}}		 The article has been endorsed by uninvolved editors at the A-Class review department of WikiProject Biography. 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. Milla Jovovich
(as of June 2008)
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}		 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. Theodore Kaczynski
(as of July 2008)
B
{{B-Class}}		 The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria: No reader should be 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. Captain Beefheart
(as of July 2008)
C
{{C-Class}}		 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. Yma Sumac
(as of June 2008)
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 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. Samuel Beardsley
(as of May 2008)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}		 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. Julian Myerscough
(as of June 2008)
List
{{List-Class}}		 Meets the criteria of a Stand-alone List, which is an article that contains primarily a list. 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 June 2008)


[edit] Priority scale

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-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" 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

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you assess an article, please remove it so that other editors will not waste time reviewing the same articles. Thanks!

Seeking an A-class rating? Go to the A-class review department and follow the instructions on that page. You might first want to submit it for a Peer Review to allow us more time to respond and review.

Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B', unless they are already rated as 'GA' by Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates.

Edit this section and place request here:


  1. Kim Ji-hoo -- expanded from short stub. PC78 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  2. The Get Up Kids - Previously a stub rating, the article has been vastly expanded, cleaned up and generally improved since the rating. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet - expanded & fully sourced. Short an image, but can't have everything. Shimgray | talk | 11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Ranulf le Meschin, 3rd Earl of Chester, unrated. Punkmorten (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  5. Dorothy Dietrich - Previously a stub rating, the article has been vastly expanded, cleaned up and generally improved with many added references since the rating. Magicusb (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
  6. Kenneth G. Mills has been significantly edited since initial assessment. Structure, content, and references all look reasonably solid and appear to deserve well above Stub-class based on the guidelines. -- 13 November 2008
  7. Emmy Rossum: I'm requesting a reassessment of the article. I meant to do this a while back, but never got around to it. The article is currently rated as Start-Class, even though it appears to be above that now. -- Luke4545 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
  8. Sukhdev Singh Babbar Needs re-assessment - This article has been significantly improved since initial assessment. References have been provided from several continents/countries/United Nations etc. Structure, content, and references all look reasonably solid and appear to deserve well above Stub-class based on the guidelines.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  9. Gurdev Singh Debu Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  10. Manbir Singh Chaheru Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  11. Harjinder Singh Jinda Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  12. Sukhdev Singh Sukha Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  13. Labh Singh Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  14. Chris Hecker - Article is currently rated stub class and has undergone a lot of improvements in the past month. -- 18 November 2008
  15. Lee Eon -- New article, needs assessment. PC78 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  16. Mary Richardson Needs a re-assessment. I recently added a lot of information, sources, references and improved the structure. I think it is time to boost it out of stub class. I hope to add pictures soon.Danielleb32 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  17. Keke Wyatt Needs a re-assessment. I and other users have been constructively contributing to this article since it was last assessed. The level of sourcing, referencing, information and structure as since improved. Bab-a-lot (talk) 02:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  18. Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger Please reassess. This was previously assessed as start class, but has been entirely restructured, rewritten, and expanded with incline citations and scholarly references. Thanks. - PKM (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  19. Stephen Conroy - Has more info and seems pretty well referenced, but is currently stub-class cojoco (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  20. Robert MacLean - Needs re-assessment. Introduction paragraph added. All content has been cited. Tone of article may be difficult to balance due the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) unwilling to comment with details. 13:07, 24 November 2003
  21. Nandamuri Balakrishna - Needs re assessment. It looks almost like a fan website. Most of it's content is biased and appears worshipping the person. No facts were presented. This article doesn't deserve a C class rating it should be a stub. Please consider. 25 November 2008
  22. Marcellus Empiricus - A C-class rating appears unfair; the article was previously a stub and now is developed. Please reconsider. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  23. Abdul Wali Khan - needs reassessment --Zak (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  24. Third Battle of Panipat - needs reassessment --Zak (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
  25. Melanie Blunt - Article needs assessment. --TommyBoy (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  26. T. K. Seung - Article needs re-assessment. Previously rated as stub. Substantial revisions subsequently added. --Dawillia (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
  27. C. M. Eddy, Jr. - Article was previously a stub, but has been copyedited and expanded. - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  28. Humphrey Kynaston - Article was previously a stub, but has been copyedited and expanded. - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  29. William B. Rowe - Since intial assessment, photo was added to info box along with links to art work examples plus geneal clean up. Request updated assessment.--Orygun (talk) 23:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  30. Jay Cutler (American football) - I'm requesting a reassessment of the article. It is currently rated Start-Class, even though it appears to be well-beyond that now. -- Luke4545 (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  31. Darren Jessee - Needs re-assessment article has been upgraded since assessment. You dont know Zach (talk) 3:48, 28 November 28 (UTC)
  32. Swami Adbhutananda, newly created needs assessment — Nvineeth talk 10:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  33. Matthew Hatton - Previously rated as stub, substantial revisions added - Safc2 (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  34. Bob Blake (ice hockey), Previously a stub, now substantially expanded -- Cheers, CP 19:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
  35. Marshall Dodge, still pretty much a stub, could use an assessment and maybe some attention.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  36. John Pease, not assessed by bio workgroup- maybe Start? --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  37. Kirk Cameron - has been expanded and re-written. Was before rated start-Class. -- American Eagle (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  38. Mike Leach (American football) - I'm requesting a reassessment of the article. It is currently rated Stub-Class, even though it appears to be at least Start-Class now. -- Luke4545 (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Biography
articles		 Importance
Top None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 21 533 554
Featured list FL 67 67
A 2 21 23
Good article GA 26 1154 1180
B 114 14435 14549
C 34 2181 2215
Start 1 119117 119118
Stub 351536 351536
List 254 254
Assessed 198 489298 489496
Unassessed 77928 77928
Total 198 567226 567424

[edit] Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month
July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006
Featured article FA 34 3.80 % 106 0.08 % 185 0.11 % 193 0.11 % 212 0.11 % 222 0.11 %
A 9 1.01 % 57 0.04 % 77 0.05 % 95 0.05 % 95 0.05 % 104 0.05 %
Good article GA 34 3.80 % 137 0.10 % 195 0.12 % 195 0.11 % 243 0.13 % 266 0.14 %
B 220 24.61 % 1,383 1.05 % 1,967 1.21 % 2,360 1.32 % 2,682 1.44 % 3,060 1.58 %
Start 104 11.63 % 4,107 3.13 % 5,634 3.47 % 6,621 3.71 % 7,980 4.30 % 34,554 9.37 %
Stub 67 7.49 % 3,515 2.68 % 27,816 17.12 % 41,572 23.27 % 43,715 23.59 % 46,635 24.15 %
Assessed 468 52.35 % 9,305 7.10 % 35,874 22.08 % 51,036 28.56 % 54,927 29.65 % 59,904 31.03 %
Unassessed 426 47.65 % 121,800 92.90 % 126,581 77.92 % 127,644 71.44 % 130,325 70.35 % 133,177 68.98 %
Total 894 131,105 162,455 178,680 185,252 193,081
January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007

May 2007

June 2007
Featured article FA 238 0.11 % 248 0.12 % 270 0.10 % 286 0.08 % 300 0.08 % 317 0.08 %
A 105 0.05 % 111 0.05 % 109 0.04 % 61 0.02 % 51 0.01 % 62 0.02 %
Good article GA 297 0.14 % 344 0.16 % 358 0.13 % 391 0.11 % 415 0.11 % 451 0.11 %
B 3,583 1.79 % 4,553 2.15 % 6,699 2.52 % 7,420 2.01 % 7,903 2.08 % 9,941 2.52 %
Start 9,617 4.98 % 12,049 6.02 % 16,774 7.92 % 29,405 11.05 % 38,107 10.04 % 60,286 15.44 %
Stub 49,852 24.91 % 62,198 29.36 % 85,677 32.02 % 207,699 56.33 % 219,635 57.87 % 240,797 61.14 %
Assessed 66,124 33.05 % 84,228 39.76 % 122,518 46.05 % 250,411 67.91 % 266,411 70.19 % 311,854 79.18 %
Unassessed 133,957 66.95 % 127,639 60.25 % 143,547 53.95 % 118,311 32.09 % 113,126 29.81 % 81,996 20.82 %
Total 200,081 211,867 266,065 368,722 379,537 393,850
July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007
Featured article FA 325 0.08 % 338 0.08 % 360 0.08 % 368 0.08 % 389 0.09 % 409 0.09 %
A 73 0.02 % 67 0.02 % 72 0.02 % 73 0.02 % 74 0.02 % 22 0.005 %
Good article GA 508 0.12 % 547 0.13 % 578 0.13 % 606 0.14 % 638 0.14 % 705 0.15 %
B 11,345 2.77 % 12,551 2.98 % 13,017 2.95 % 13,156 2.95 % 13,323 2.95 % 13,493 2.92 %
Start 72,224 17.61 % 81,464 19.33 % 88,191 19.98 % 89,645 20.13 % 91,489 20.27 % 92,968 20.14 %
Stub 251,820 61.41 % 263,069 62.41 % 284,594 64.46 % 285,629 64.15 % 288,878 64.01 % 296,518 64.22 %
List N/A N/A N/A N/A 79 0.02 % 75 0.02 %
Assessed 336,295 82.01 % 358,036 84.94 % 386,812 87.62 % 389,477 87.48 % 394,870 87.50 % 404,190 87.54 %
Unassessed 73,770 17.99 % 63,456 15.06 % 54,677 12.38 % 55,744 12.52 % 56,426 12.50 % 57,506 12.46 %
Total 410,065 421,492 441,489 445,221 451,296 461,696
January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008
Featured article FA 428 0.09 % 441 0.09 % 467 0.09 % 484 0.09 % 499 0.10 % 515 0.10 %
A 19 0.004 % 19 0.004 % 20 0.004 % 22 0.004 % 20 0.004 % 22 0.004 %
Good article GA 757 0.15 % 784 0.16 % 878 0.17 % 934 0.18 % 983 0.19 % 984 0.19 %
B 13,629 2.74 % 13,698 2.74 % 14,023 2.78 % 14,160 2.78 % 14,460 2.80 % 14,594 2.79 %
C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 119 0.02 %
Start 94,615 19.03 % 95,799 19.20 % 100,651 19.92 % 103,688 20.34 % 109,457 21.19 % 112,541 21.51 %
Stub 308,861 62.11 % 311,161 62.35 % 318,234 62.99 % 323,539 63.47 % 333,698 64.59 % 340,940 65.16 %
List 93 0.02 % 92 0.02 % 106 0.02 % 108 0.02 % 109 0.02 % 114 0.02 %
Assessed 418,402 84.13 % 421,994 84.56 % 434,379 85.98 % 442,935 86.90 % 459,226 88.89 % 469,829 89.80 %
Unassessed 78,898 15.87 % 77,071 15.44 % 70,843 14.02 % 66,799 13.10 % 57,410 11.11 % 53,385 10.20 %
Total 497,300 499,065 505,222 509,734 516,636 523,214

[edit] Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class. To calculate the information for one class, where x = amount of articles in class that month and i = amount of articles in the class the previous month... Amount of articles change = x - i; Percent change = (x / i) * 100 - 100, then round up to the nearest one hundredth of a perecent.
August 2006