Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Drag Race/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HomeTalkEditingShowcaseAssessment

Assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Drag Race articles lets us recognize excellent contributions and identify topics in need of further work. The quality ratings also play a role in the WP:1.0 program, which the WikiProject uses to help automate some of the assessing process.

Assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Drag Race}} project banner. This causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Drag Race articles by quality and Category:Drag Race articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

How to assess an article

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Drag Race}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class Drag Race articles category)  FA
FL (for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class Drag Race articles category)  FL
A (for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class Drag Race articles category)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class Drag Race articles category)  GA
B (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class Drag Race articles category) B
C (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class Drag Race articles category) C
Start (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class Drag Race articles category) Start
Stub (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class Drag Race articles category) Stub
List (for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class Drag Race articles category) List
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class Drag Race pages category) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed Drag Race articles category) ???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

Category (for categories; adds them to the Category-Class Drag Race pages category) Category
Template (for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class Drag Race pages category) Template

Unassessed and recently assessed articles

[edit]

Requesting an assessment

[edit]
  • If you have made significant changes to an article and would like someone to reassess it (up to and including B-class), please post a reassessment request at WT:RPDR.
  • For improving an article beyond B-class, see WP:GA to nominate an article as a good article and WP:FAC to nominate an article as a featured article.
  • You can request a peer review for an article at WP:PR.

Quality scale

[edit]

WikiProject Drag Race uses the same criteria for grading articles as set out by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you are not sure what class an article falls under, leave a note on the WikiProject's talkpage, and someone will help you out.

WikiProject content 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 where appropriate.
 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. Cherry Valentine
(as of May 2023)
 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul
(as of October 2020)
 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. N/A
 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. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    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 (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. Honey Davenport
(as of December 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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. Aja
(as of February 2023)
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. RuPaul
(as of ???)
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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. RuPaul's Drag Race: Untucked
(as of ???)
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. The Vivienne
(as of August 2019)
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 Drag Race contestants
(as of June 2010)
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:Drag Race (franchise)

Importance scale

[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Drag Race}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Drag Race|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 Drag Race articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Drag Race articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Drag Race articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Drag Race articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Drag Race articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Drag Race articles)  ??? 
WikiProject article importance scheme
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. RuPaul's Drag Race
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Shangela
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. World of Wonder (company)
 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. RuPaul's Drag Race (season 1)
 NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. N/A

Statistics

[edit]
Drag Race articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 2 2
FL 1 1
GA 3 27 30
B 2 1 1 1 5
C 1 2 16 26 3 48
Start 1 1 75 599 3 10 689
Stub 270 5 8 283
List 3 1 19 1 24
Category 171 171
Template 108 108
NA 5 473 478
Assessed 4 7 96 949 760 23 1,839
Unassessed 1 5 6
Total 4 8 101 949 760 23 1,845
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 5,423 Ω = 5.12

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Drag_Race/Assessment&oldid=1157618204"