Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Assessment

    Add links
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Ukraine articles by quality and importance
    Quality Importance
    Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
    FA 3 3 6
    FL 2 2
    FM 20 20
    A 2 2 4
    GA 2 10 23 17 1 53
    B 7 15 36 48 106
    C 56 245 308 971 9 420 2,009
    Start 44 255 603 3,688 14 1,752 6,356
    Stub 4 70 313 5,252 72 4,362 10,073
    List 8 27 48 352 18 153 606
    Category 5 8,495 8,500
    Disambig 1 123 1 125
    File 1 160 161
    Portal 1 1
    Project 1 21 22
    Redirect 3 14 307 324
    Template 1 27 794 822
    NA 1 1
    Other 1 107 108
    Assessed 122 627 1,339 10,380 10,142 6,689 29,299
    Unassessed 1 2 173 176
    Total 122 627 1,340 10,382 10,142 6,862 29,475
    WikiWork factors (?) ω = 100,745 Ω = 5.41

    Welcome to the assessment department of the Ukraine WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Ukraine. 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 {{WikiProject Ukraine}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Ukraine 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 Ukraine 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 {{WikiProject Ukraine}} project banner on its talk page: 

    {{WikiProject Ukraine
|class=
|importance=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}

    The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

    Quality scale[edit]

    WikiProject article 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.
    		 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. Cleopatra
    (as of June 2018)
     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. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
    (as of May 2018)
     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. Battle of Nam River
    (as of June 2014)
     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. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
      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 (but not equaling) 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. Discovery of the neutron
    (as of April 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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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. Human
    (as of April 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. Wing
    (as of June 2018)
    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. Ring-tailed cardinalfish
    (as of June 2018)
    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. Crescent Falls
    (as of June 2018)
    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 Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947
    (as of June 2018)

    Importance scale[edit]

    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). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Ukraine.

    Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

    Status Template Meaning of Status
    Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
    High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
    Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
    Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
    None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

    The following are guidelines as to how to rate articles by importance:

    We are currently discussing which articles should be counted as being of Top-importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine/Assessment/Top-importance articles.

    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.

    1. 2009 Russia–Ukraine gas dispute - Substantially reworked. Further suggestions and constructive criticism welcome.
    2. Zvenigora - Article has been fleshed out with reliable sources by another editor. Holdek (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3. Kryvyi Rih - totaly rewrited. B class or higher? --Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 10:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    4. Kseniya Simonova - Article has been rewrited and fleshed out with reliable sourses. Please review it and if you consider it correct, please, change the Stub category. --Татьяна Ар 9 November 2016 (UTC)
    5. Hungary–Ukraine relations - Unassessed; fleshed out from redirect about 1.5 months ago. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 19:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    6. Katya Soldak - Since first assessment I have cut down PROMO wording and added valid references, article has been fleshed out with reliable sources by another editor. Now IMHO class B but at least C. --J. Lunau (talk) 12:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    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.

    May 26, 2023[edit]

    Reassessed[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    Removed[edit]

    May 25, 2023[edit]

    Renamed[edit]

    Reassessed[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    Removed[edit]

    May 24, 2023[edit]

    Renamed[edit]

    Reassessed[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    Removed[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_Ukraine/Assessment&oldid=1156125889"