Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal personal.svg 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 by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top Other Total
FA 21 748 769
FL 100 100
A 39 39
GA 22 2,164 2,186
B 66 16,014 16,080
C 91 13,224 13,315
Start 179,445 179,445
Stub 536,166 536,166
List 704 704
Book 225 225
Category 11,528 11,528
Disambig 5,086 5,086
Template 848 848
NA 300 300
Assessed 200 766,591 766,791
Unassessed 124,857 124,857
Total 200 891,448 891,648
Shortcuts:
WP:BIOG/A
WP:BIOGRAPHY/A

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 100,000 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. 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, add in the proper parameters to the talk page template, as outlined below.

[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:

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 article quality grading scheme
v • d • e
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. Mary Shelley
(as of June 2008)
 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. Milla Jovovich
(as of June 2008)
 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. Theodore Kaczynski
(as of July 2008)
 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. Expert knowledge may be 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. Captain Beefheart
(as of July 2008)
 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. Yma Sumac
(as of June 2008)
 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. Samuel Beardsley
(as of May 2008)
 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. Julian Myerscough
(as of June 2008)
 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. Timeline of Jane Austen
(as of March 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 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. Also, make sure to check the overview on Category:Unassessed biography articles for details on how to assess the template. Thanks!

Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B'; see Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles for higher assessments.

Edit this section and place request here:

  1. Five Finger Death Punch - Pantera5FDP (talk) 04:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  2. Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley - they are currently rated at C-class, and I just want to be sure whether they really make the cut; if not, then a downgrade to Start is acceptable. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  3. Warren Spector - 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
  4. Alan Miranda - what is this one, really? Stub, or is it enough for a Start? 108.69.80.49 (talk) 21:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC) - Its a start - a tiny bit shorter and it would be a stub Victuallers (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  5. Prince Marko. I have significantly expanded this article and suppose it could be rated "B". Vladimir (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Biography articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top Other Total
FA 21 748 769
FL 100 100
A 39 39
GA 22 2,164 2,186
B 66 16,014 16,080
C 91 13,224 13,315
Start 179,445 179,445
Stub 536,166 536,166
List 704 704
Book 225 225
Category 11,528 11,528
Disambig 5,086 5,086
Template 848 848
NA 300 300
Assessed 200 766,591 766,791
Unassessed 124,857 124,857
Total 200 891,448 891,648


[edit] Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month
July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006
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 %
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
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 %
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
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 %
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
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 %
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 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006
FA +72 +211.76 % +79 +74.53 % +8 +4.32 % +19 +9.84 % +10 +4.72 %
A +48 +533.33 % +20 +35.09 % +18 +23.38 % +0 +0.00 % +9 +9.47 %
GA +103 +302.94 % +58 +42.34 % +0 +0.00 % +48 +24.62 % +23 +9.47 %
B +1,163 +528.64 % +584 +42.23 % +393 +19.98 % +322 +13.64 % +378 +14.09 %
Start +4,003 +3,849.04 % +1,527 +37.18 % +987 +17.52 % +1,359 +20.53 % +1,637 +20.51 %
Stub +3,448 +5,146.27 % +24,301 +691.35 % +13,756 +49.45 % +2,143 +5.15 % +2,920 +6.68 %
Assessed +8,837 +1,888.25 % +26,569 +285.53 % +15,162 +42.26 % +3,891 +7.62 % +4,977 +9.06 %
Unassessed +121,374 +28,491.55 % +4,781 +3.93 % +1,063 +0.84 % +2,681 +2.10 % +2,852 +2.19 %
Total +130,211 +14,564.99 % +31,350 +23.91 % +16,225 +9.99 % +6,572 +3.68 % +7,829 +4.23 %
January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007

May 2007
FA +16 +6.72 % +10 +4.20 % +22 +8.87 % +16 +5.93 % +14 +4.90 %
A +1 +0.96 % +6 +5.71 % -2 -1.80 % -48 -44.04 % -10 -16.39 %
GA +31 +11.65 % +47 +15.83 % +14 +4.07 % +33 +9.22 % +24 +6.14 %
B +523 +17.09 % +970 +27.07 % +2,146 +47.13 % +721 +10.76 % +483 +6.51 %
Start +2,432 +25.29 % +4,725 +39.22 % +12,631 +75.30 % +5,149 +17.51 % +8,702 +29.59 %
Stub +3,217 +6.90 % +12,346 +24.77 % +23,479 +37.75 % +122,022 +142.42 % +11,936 +5.75 %
Assessed +6,220 +10.38 % +18,104 +27.28 % +38,290 +45.46 % +127,893 +104.39 % +16,000 +6.39 %
Unassessed +780 +0.58 % -6,318 -4.72 % +15,908 +12.46 % -25,236 -17.58 % -5,185 -4.38 %
Total +7,000 +3.63 % +11,786 +5.89 % +54,198 +25.58 % +102,657 +38.58 % +10,815 +2.93 %
June 2007
FA +17 +5.67 %
A +11 +21.57 %
GA +36 +8.67 %
B +2,038 +25.79 %
Start +22,179 +58.20 %
Stub +21,162 +9.64 %
Assessed +45,443 +17.06 %
Unassessed -31,130 -27.52 %
Total +14,313 +3.77 %

[edit] Assessment log

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

[edit] Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment"
Personal tools
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages