Wikipedia:WikiProject Phoenicia/Assessment
The core mission of this sub-project is to evaluate Phoenician-related articles, both in terms of their quality and their importance (or priority). These assessments serve several crucial purposes within our project. Our primary objectives include tracking the progress of WikiProject:Phoenicia, pinpointing areas where our coverage may be lacking, and identifying articles with the potential to achieve "Good Article" or "Featured Article" status. These assessments are an integral part of the Wikipedia 1.0 project, contributing to the creation of to offline knowledge collections.
Current status
The table presented on this page provides a summarized overview of essential information about articles that have been assigned ratings within the scope of our project.
Articles assessed for quality: 100% complete | |
Articles by quality and importance |
---|
Frequently Asked Questions
This section summarizes article assessment instructions. If you do not find what you were looking for, check the detailed instructions in the next section. If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the Talk page.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings? |
---|
The rating system allows us to monitor the quality of articles in our area, and prioritize editor time for working on these articles. It is also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program for static releases of Wikipedia content. These ratings are intended for internal use within the project, and do not necessarily constitute an official rating in any meaningful sense. |
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? |
---|
3. Who can assess articles? |
---|
Any editor or member of the WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article between stub, start, C and B classes. Editors do not need to be specialists nor members of WikiProject Phoenicia to assess articles within this range of classes. However, quality assignments higher than B-class cannot be made outside the formal review process; this is because the GA, A, and FA-class designations require significant attention to detail and consensus. |
4. How do I rate an article? |
---|
Select from the quality scale, after reviewing in detail, the level that best matches the state of the article. Then follow the #Assessment instructions to convey the rating onto the article, through the article's talk page project banner. Remember that quality ratings above B-class cannot be made unilaterally. |
5. Can I request that someone else rate an article? |
---|
Absolutely. Simply request it at our Talk page. |
6. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? |
---|
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we may be unable to leave a detailed rationale. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning. If you require written, detailed feedback on your article, you may like to consider using peer review. |
7. What if I don't agree with a rating? |
---|
List it at #Requests for assessment and someone else will evaluate the article. Or, ask the original reviewer or any other member of the project to re-rate the article. |
8. 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! |
Instructions
How To Assess an Article
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the WikiProject Phoenicia project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Phoenicia articles. At present, there are 0 articles that need assessment (e.g., that need to have a class inserted in the class parameter of the template).
Phoenicia articles to be assessed have some aspects of the template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. First, select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed Phoenicia articles. Then, look over the article in preparation to filling out the parameters of the Phoenicia template. Next, replace the WikiProject Phoenicia template on the article talk page with the following:
{{WikiProject Phoenicia |class= |importance=}}
The above {{WikiProject Phoenicia}} template has all the answers that you will need for most situations. From your review of the article, delete those answers and parameters that do not fit the article. Then, fill in the listas parameter (e.g., last name, first name), then save. And, you are done!
Class parameter
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Phoenicia}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Phoenicia|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 Phoenicia articles) | FA |
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Phoenicia articles) | A |
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Phoenicia articles) | GA |
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Phoenicia articles) | B |
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Phoenicia articles) | C |
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Phoenicia articles) | Start |
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Phoenicia articles) | Stub |
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Phoenicia articles) | FL |
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Phoenicia articles) | List |
For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:
Importance parameter
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Phoenicia}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Phoenicia|importance=???}}
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project:
Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Phoenicia articles) | Top |
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Phoenicia articles) | High |
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Phoenicia articles) | Mid |
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Phoenicia articles) | Low |
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Phoenicia articles) | NA |
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Phoenicia articles) | ??? |
The importance parameter should be assigned according to the importance scale below.
Criteria
As do most WikiProjects, we assess our articles for Quality and Importance. Quality designations are made according to a set of generally-accepted criteria, which are summarised below. Lower quality designations are conferred by individual project members. Higher quality designations are conferred once the article has passed a peer review by a group of Classics editors (for A-class status) or the relevant Wikipedia-wide assessment systems (for GA-class or FA-class status).
Requests for assessment of an article into B-class or any lower rank may be made at #Requests for assessment. You should not assess an article you have made substantial contributions to, because – self-evidently – it is less likely you will be able to fairly and accurately judge your own work.
It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. We each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area.
Class | Criteria | Assessment process | Example | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FA | The article meets all the featured article criteria.
|
Featured article candidacy (FAC) | Roman temple of Bziza (January 2020) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. Peer review may help. | ||||||
A | The article meets all of the A-Class criteria.
|
A-Class review at [[WT:]]. | Late Roman army (as of September 2008) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: 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. | ||||||
GA | The article meets all the Good article criteria and has been externally reviewed against them.
|
Good article nomination | National Museum of Beirut (as of August 2020) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: 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. | ||||||
B | The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|
Individual review | Phoenician alphabet) (as of August 2020) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | ||||||
C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. It meets B1 or B2 and all of B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
|
Individual review | Carthage (as of August 2020) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. | ||||||
Start | A classics article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|
Individual review | Lamedh (as of August 2020) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Any editing or additional material will be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be prioritised. Bear in mind that some topics may simply not have anything more than rudimentary data available on them – for example, many topics from the early Roman Republic and the Roman Kingdom. | ||||||
Stub | A very basic description of a topic clearly related to classics.
|
Individual review | Bodashtart (as of August 2020) | ||||
See also: Category:Phoenicia articles by quality and the generic criteria. |
Assessments of importance do not, and should not, reflect the importance of the subject within academia or classical studies, but rather its importance to an average reader with no background in the subject.