Wikipedia:WikiProject Lakes/Assessment

Lakes articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 2 4 6
FL 1 1
GA 1 6 6 32 45
B 8 26 23 79 11 147
C 5 50 92 343 104 594
Start 7 88 217 2,363 1,405 4,080
Stub 1 33 156 5,148 1 6,270 11,609
List 7 135 124 262 2 67 597
Category 2,470 2,470
Disambig 1 1 133 135
File 134 134
Portal 1 1
Project 43 43
Redirect 7 55 973 1,035
Template 131 131
Other 10 10
Assessed 29 338 628 8,288 3,898 7,857 21,038
Unassessed 16 16
Total 29 338 628 8,288 3,898 7,873 21,054
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 92,961 Ω = 5.64

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Lakes! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about lakes. 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 Lakes}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Lakes articles by quality and Category:Lakes articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the WikiProject Lakes To Do list - Assessment section.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Lakes 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 WikiProject Lakes To Do list - Assessment section, 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

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Lakes}} project banner on its talk page: 

{{WikiProject Lakes
 |class=
 |importance=
 |attention=
 |mapneeded=
 |needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:


 FA A GABCStartStub FLListCategoryDisambigDraftFilePortalProjectRedirectTemplateNA???
60451475944,08011,60915972,470135101341431,035131916 

Article Ratings

List Ratings

Other Class Types - Non article

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Lakes 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

Importance scale

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 Lakes.

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 several audiences —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.

Importance assessment

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

{{WikiProject Lakes| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

  • Top - The article is about one of the core topics of Lakes. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Lakes articles
    • List - International lvl - International Country Lists (Lists of Lakes, List of Lakes by X)
  • High - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Lakes. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Lakes articles
    • List - Region lvl 0 - Country Level Lists
  • Mid - The article is about a topic about Lakes that may or may not be commonly known outside the specialists community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Lakes articles
    • List - Region lvl 1 - Administrative Level below country lists (ie. State, Province)
  • Low - The article is about a Lakes topic that is highly specialized and is not generally common knowledge outside the specialist community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Lakes articles
    • List - Region lvl 2 - Two administrative levels below country lists (ie. County, District, City)
  • Unknown - Any article which is not assessed on the importance scale is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance Lakes articles.

Requesting an 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 add it to the WikiProject Lakes To Do list - Assessment section.

Assessment log

Lakes articles:
Index · Statistics · 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 23, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Evaporation pond (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Gialova Lagoon (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake Weatherford (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Robinson's Branch Reservoir (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Zhrebchevo Reservoir (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

April 22, 2024

Reassessed

  • Głębokie Lake (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Knee Lake (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lac de Vitalaca (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake James (Manitoba) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake Manitoba (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake St. Martin (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake Wahtopanah (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Lake Grundlsee (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

April 21, 2024

Reassessed

  • Assean Lake (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • Bryan Lake (Manitoba) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • Camp Lake (Manitoba) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Gods Lake (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Holt Lake (Manitoba) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake Fiordovoye (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Shagan (lake) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Głębokie Lake (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lac de Bracca (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lac de Calacuccia (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lac de Tolla (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lac de Vitalaca (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lac de l'Argentella (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lac du Monte Tignoso (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake Waxahachie (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

April 20, 2024

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Chini (reservoir) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • Harangi Dam (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Balyktykol (Karasor Basin) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Dorong (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Draft:Duke Pond (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • List of alpine lakes in India (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as List-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Saumalkol (Karasor Basin) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • St. Patricks Channel (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

April 19, 2024

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Juparanã Lagoon (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake Brasimone (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lake Rabon (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

April 18, 2024

Renamed

Reassessed

Assessed

  • North Fork Reservoir (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Shagan (lake) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

April 17, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

  • Lake Orange (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Limestone Lake (Saskatchewan) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

Worklist

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_Lakes/Assessment&oldid=1156125765"