Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/Assessment
Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Protected areas! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's protected areas 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.
The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Protected areas}} project banner. The different values cause the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Protected areas articles by quality and Category:Protected areas articles by importance.
Current status[edit]
| Protected areas articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 FA
|
12 | 11 | 21 | 44 | |||
| FL
|
6 | 7 | 54 | 67 | |||
| FM
|
27 | 27 | |||||
 GA
|
1 | 6 | 27 | 80 | 114 | ||
| B | 3 | 24 | 71 | 256 | 354 | ||
| C | 6 | 87 | 263 | 1,233 | 2 | 1,591 | |
| Start | 2 | 146 | 994 | 6,502 | 5 | 7,649 | |
| Stub | 1 | 66 | 639 | 9,262 | 8 | 9,976 | |
| List | 2 | 37 | 148 | 489 | 46 | 1 | 723 |
| Category | 3,591 | 3,591 | |||||
| Disambig | 7 | 7 | |||||
| File | 17 | 17 | |||||
| Portal | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Project | 9 | 9 | |||||
| Redirect | 4 | 25 | 206 | 575 | 810 | ||
| Template | 370 | 370 | |||||
| Other | 4 | 4 | |||||
| Assessed | 15 | 388 | 2,185 | 18,103 | 4,649 | 16 | 25,356 |
| Unassessed | 7 | 268 | 275 | ||||
| Total | 15 | 388 | 2,185 | 18,110 | 4,649 | 284 | 25,631 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 105,755 | Ω = 5.36 | |||||
FAQ[edit]
- See also the general assessment 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 {{WikiProject Protected areas}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Protected areas}} 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?
- Any member of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
- 5. How do I rate an article?
- Check the quality scale 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. Where can I get more comments about an article?
- Wikipedia:Peer review can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
- 8. 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.
- 9. 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!
- 10. 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, you can go to the main project discussion page.
Assessment instructions[edit]
Quality[edit]
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Protected areas}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Protected areas|class=???}}
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 Protected areas articles) | FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Protected areas articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Protected areas articles) | GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Protected areas articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Protected areas articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Protected areas articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Protected areas articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Protected areas articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Protected areas articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status.
Quality scale[edit]
| 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.
|
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.[under discussion] | Marojejy National Park (as of March 2011) |
| 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:
|
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. | List of National Parks of Canada (as of April 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. | Vikos–Aoös National Park (as of May 2011) |
| 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:
|
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. | Horton Plains National Park (as of December 2009) |
| 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
|
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. | Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge (as of March 2011) |
| 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. | Kakadu National Park (as of July 2011) |
| 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:
|
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. | Kutai National Park (as of December 2010) |
| 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. | Abrolhos Marine National Park (as of June 2011) |
| 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 national parks of Indonesia (as of July 2011) |
| ??? | Article quality has not yet been assessed. | Articles for which a valid quality rating has not yet been provided are listed in this category. | A quality parameter should be assigned according to the assessment department of the WikiProject. | See: Category:Unassessed Protected areas articles |
Importance[edit]
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Protected areas}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Protected areas|importance=???}}
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):
| Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Protected areas articles) | Top | |
| High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Protected areas articles) | High | |
| Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Protected areas articles) | Mid | |
| Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Protected areas articles) | Low | |
| NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Protected areas articles) | NA | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Protected areas articles) | ??? |
Importance scale[edit]
| Importance | Criteria | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Protected area |
| High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Grand Teton National Park |
| Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | Trunk Bay |
| Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. | Maliau Basin |
| NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. | Category:A-Class Protected areas articles |
| ??? | Subject importance has not yet been assessed. | See: Category:Unknown-importance Protected areas articles |
Requests for 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 at the top.
Protected areas of Victoria (Australia)[edit]
- Protected areas of Victoria. Would like reassessment after recent edits, cleaning up, and updating of data. --ThylacineHunter (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Conservation community[edit]
- Conservation community. Did not yet have a rating as part of the Protected areas project. Would like assessment after recent significant edits/clean up. Rosenbergwrite (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Nagi Dam Bird Sanctuary[edit]
- Nagi Dam Bird Sanctuary. Significant changes to the content and structure have been made. The use of jargon has been reduced. Hilfiger28 (talk)
National Parks Autonomous Agency[edit]
- National Parks Autonomous Agency. I significantly expanded the article. TheRichic
(Messages here) 15:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
Hinulugang Taktak National Park[edit]
- Hinulugang Taktak Arius1998 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument[edit]
- Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument. Brianga (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Assessment Request: List of national parks of England and Wales[edit]
I have just completed a List article named List of national parks of England and Wales, having been inspired to create it after I read the List of national parks of the United States. I would very much like to have the review and revision necessary to make this article as good as it can be.Kwib (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- I only looked at it briefly, but could you find a way to connect the numbers in your top figure with the parks in the list so viewers will know which number corresponds to which park. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Assessment Request: Riding Mountain National Park[edit]
I significantly expanded and revised the Riding Mountain National Park article. I am a newer editor and would greatly appreciate it being assessed. Thank you ahead of time! Trek104 (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Just an update, I took the initiative to change the status from a Stub to Start class as it is definitely not a stub anymore. I will await outside feedback on whether it should be rated higher than that. Thanks!Trek104 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- I read through the article and you've done a good job expanding it. Some work still needs to be done if you want to take it to GA status though. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Requests for A-Class status[edit]
to be set up