Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota/Assessment
South Dakota articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
2 | 2 | |||||
![]() |
1 | 1 | |||||
![]() |
3 | 1 | 8 | 15 | 27 | ||
B | 3 | 16 | 32 | 53 | 1 | 105 | |
C | 3 | 18 | 45 | 170 | 8 | 244 | |
Start | 6 | 53 | 274 | 1,120 | 36 | 1,489 | |
Stub | 9 | 100 | 2,342 | 110 | 2,561 | ||
List | 1 | 18 | 34 | 116 | 1 | 170 | |
Category | 2,910 | 2,910 | |||||
Disambig | 4 | 2 | 6 | ||||
File | 3 | 13 | 16 | ||||
Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
Template | 1 | 285 | 286 | ||||
NA | 6 | 54 | 186 | 246 | |||
Other | 3 | 3 | |||||
Assessed | 16 | 116 | 499 | 3,880 | 3,400 | 156 | 8,067 |
Unassessed | 1 | 4 | 96 | 101 | |||
Total | 16 | 116 | 500 | 3,884 | 3,400 | 252 | 8,168 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 24,150 | Ω = 5.46 |
Welcome to the assessment department of the South Dakota WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about South Dakota or the people of South Dakota. 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 South Dakota}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:South Dakota 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 South Dakota 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 South Dakota}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject South Dakota
|class=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class South Dakota articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class South Dakota articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class South Dakota articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class South Dakota articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class South Dakota articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class South Dakota articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article South Dakota pages)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed South Dakota articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Quality scale
[edit]Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
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.
|
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) |
![]() |
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:
|
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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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
[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 South Dakota.
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. |
We are currently discussing which articles should be counted as being of Top-importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota/Assessment/Top-importance articles.
Additional criteria to use:
Top importance
- South Dakota
- General "X of South Dakota" (where X = things like history, geography, demographics...)
- Sioux Falls, Rapid City
- Black Hills, Missouri River
High importance
- Cities with pop. 8,000 to 50,000
- Counties with pop. greater than 20,000
- Ellsworth AFB
- More specialized "X of South Dakota" (Ecology, geology, courts...)
- Major parks and monuments (National parks, Mt. Rushmore, Custer SP)
- Daugaard, Thune, Johnson, Noem
- State flag, state seal, state capitol
- SDSU and USD
- Large reservations
- Interstates 29 and 90
- Historical events with a major, lasting impact (L&C expedition, Dust Bowl, Wounded Knee massacre, BH gold rush...)
- Major geographic regions and features besides those listed as "Top" (Great Plains, James River...)
- Census-defined Metropolitan Areas (SF & RC)
Mid importance
- Cities with pop. 1,000 to 8,000
- Smaller counties
- "X of [City]" (e.g. "History of Sioux Falls")
- State government departments, agencies, etc.
- All other elected and appointed government offices
- Current major government officials (current secretary of X, Speaker of the House...)
- Widely known non-politicians (Tom Brokaw, Laura Ingalls Wilder...)
- Former governors, US senators, congressmen
- Notable buildings and structures (DakotaDome, other airports, Missouri River dams, etc.)
- Major media outlets (2 largest newspapers, affiliates of major TV networks, major regional radio stations, SDPB)
- Private and smaller public colleges and universities
- Interstates 190 and 229, US and SD highways of considerable length in the state
- Localized yet important geographic features (Harney Peak, Lake Oahe...)
- Smaller/less notable places managed by National Park Service, national wildlife refuges, state parks besides Custer
- Very limited number of companies with a major historical or large current impact (Milwaukee Road, Sanford Health...)
- Weather events of regional impact or great local impact (1993 floods, Rapid City flood...)
- Major tourist attractions (Wall Drug, Sturgis Rally, Crazy Horse monument...)
- Census-defined Micropolitan areas
Low importance
- Townships
- Cities with pop. less than 1,000
- All CDPs, unincorporated communities, and defunct cities
- Most politicians and government officials (state legislators, mayors...)
- Non-politicians of lesser fame or notablility
- Minor media outlets
- Elections
- Military units
- Most buildings
- Most organizations
- Most sports teams
- Nearly all companies
- Community colleges, high schools, middle schools
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.
The Journey Museum and Gardens (Fact-of-the-matter (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC))
- I've gone ahead and re-assessed it as C class. Like I said in my edit summary, the article still has issues, but is much larger than stub class. AlexiusHoratius 20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Joe Kirby I think this bio is longer and more detailed than a stub.Joepkirby (talk) 00:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Upped it to "Start" class. AlexiusHoratius 01:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Minnesela, South Dakota I revised and added new information to the article; it used to be Stub-class, and I am not sure which class it now belongs in. I believe it is much more than Start-class, but the Demographics section is poor (mainly due to its status as a ghost town). TCMemoire (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- I put it at C class (lots of references, but as you said the geography and demographics sections are really short.) I also agree that it's much more than stub and probably better than start. I think of stub as usually really short and start as "lots of information but really sloppy". You (or other members) are always welcome to change my assessments if you disagree. AlexiusHoratius 12:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do agree; the article could use some work, like I said. I will try to do more research to expand the article. TCMemoire (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
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.
September 7, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]September 5, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- 1961 South Dakota State Jackrabbits football team (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
[edit]- Category:People from South Dakota by century (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
September 3, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- Murder of Darlene VanderGiesen (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
- South Dakota Women's Prison (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
[edit]- St. Elizabeth's Indian School (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
September 2, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- Category:Schools in Shannon County, South Dakota (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
[edit]- Murder of Darlene VanderGiesen (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
September 1, 2024
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- James Wangsness (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
- Scatter Their Own (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
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 is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
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.