Wikipedia:WikiProject Glaciers/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Glacier WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's glacier, glaciology and related 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 Glaciers}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:WikiProject Glaciers articles by quality.

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 Glaciers}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Glaciers}} 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 Glacier WikiProject 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. 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.
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!
9. 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, leave a message on the talk page.

Assessment instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Glaciers}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Glaciers| ... | class=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used:

should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured articles
should only be used for articles that have A-Class status
should only be used for articles that are currently listed as good articles

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

Quality scale

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 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.[under discussion] 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. 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. 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. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
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. Ball
(as of September 2014)
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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
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 literary movements

Requests for assessment

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.

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.


April 16, 2024

Reassessed

  • Boschert Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Brush Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Bunner Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Holt Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Park Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Sorenson Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • True Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Zuniga Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

April 14, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Moore Glacier (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

April 13, 2024

Reassessed

  • Clausen Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Steuri Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

April 12, 2024

Reassessed

  • Blackwelder Glacier (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Haynes Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Horrall Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Kohler Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Roos Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Simmons Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Vane Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Yoder Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

April 11, 2024

Reassessed

  • Dorchuck Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Keys Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • McClinton Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Rydelek Icefalls (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Singer Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

April 10, 2024

Reassessed

  • Berry Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • DeVicq Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Johnson Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Venzke Glacier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Guldfaxe (glacier) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Glaciers/Assessment&oldid=985526814"