This was copied from somewhere else and is in the process of being adjusted for the Beetle project's needs.
WikiProject Beetles manages lots of articles related to beetles. This section is an attempt to categorise some of the main ones as to quality level and address which ones need work the most.
Beetle articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 1 | 1 | |||||
FM | 13 | 13 | |||||
GA | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | |||
B | 6 | 12 | 11 | 29 | |||
C | 16 | 65 | 119 | 200 | |||
Start | 15 | 163 | 591 | 769 | |||
Stub | 7 | 172 | 37,624 | 3 | 37,806 | ||
List | 2 | 2 | 189 | 193 | |||
Category | 1,324 | 1,324 | |||||
Disambig | 13 | 13 | |||||
File | 23 | 23 | |||||
Project | 16 | 16 | |||||
Redirect | 1 | 381 | 182 | 564 | |||
Template | 8,114 | 8,114 | |||||
NA | 12 | 5 | 17 | ||||
Other | 2 | 2 | |||||
Assessed | 1 | 49 | 419 | 38,927 | 9,692 | 3 | 49,091 |
Total | 1 | 49 | 419 | 38,927 | 9,692 | 3 | 49,091 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 231,570 | Ω = 5.97 |
This is an ongoing task and your help would be appreciated. Have a read of some of the existing classifications so you know what this is about, and please do read the instructions before starting, as there are a few tweaks and other jobs we can do at the same time as classifying with minimal extra effort and good returns!
Article Assessment Department
editWelcome to WikiProject Beetles' Article Assessment Department. The bot providing the classification information runs once a day, so most of the time the data presented here have a lag of one day.
How to grade
edit- Locate ungraded beetle related articles which are within the scope of the project. Those we know about reside in Category:Unassessed beetle articles and Category:Unknown-importance beetle articles
- Grade the article using the grading and importance scheme below.
- Once graded, the {{WikiProject Beetles}} template needs to be included (not subst'd) on the Talk page with the correct Template:WikiProject Beetles. These need to be updated after improvements to the article to reflect the article status.
- Apply small fixes on the spot (or big fixes if you have the time and inclination).
- While you are there, check that the article is in at least one (and usually only one) beetle category.
- If the article is graded better than a stub but it has a stub template, remove the stub template(s) from the article.
- If the article needs a photo, put a |needs-photo=yes parameter into the {{WikiProject Beetles}} template
- If an article might be in need of either merging or splitting, please note the article first and, for merge proposals, any articles you would suggest merging the article into. In addition, make a discussion on the WikiProject Talk Page and maybe ping several of the WikiProject Beetle members to ask for their opinion before merging/splitting.
Examples
editPlace some examples of the template usage/grading procedure here.
- For example, change {{WikiProject Beetles}} to {{WikiProject Beetles|class=B|importance=Low}} if you think it's a low importance B class article... then explain why on the comments subpage.
Grading scheme
editQuality scale
editClass | 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.
|
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. | none of as April 2015 |
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:
|
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. | none as of December 2015 |
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. | none as of April 2015 |
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:
|
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. | Beetle, Emerald ash borer |
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. | Rove beetle |
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. | Adephaga |
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. | Burying beetle |
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. | Abacetus belli |
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 subgroups of the order Coleoptera |
Importance scale
editImportance | Criteria | Example |
---|---|---|
Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Beetle |
High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Staphylinidae |
Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | (eg. commonly known beetle species) |
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. | (eg. obscure beetle species) |
NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. | Category:Beetles |
??? | Subject importance has not yet been assessed. | All those in Category:Unknown-importance beetle articles |
Categories
edit- Category:Beetles
- Category:Beetle articles by quality - Articles categorised by quality
- Category:Unassessed beetle articles - Articles which have not yet been assessed by quality
- Category:Beetle articles by importance - Articles categorised by importance
- Category:Unknown-importance beetle articles - Articles which have not yet been assessed for importance
Assessment log
editBeetle 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.
December 3, 2024
editAssessed
edit- Acorynus analis (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Pseudomorychus mixtus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
December 2, 2024
editRenamed
edit- Anisopodus acutus renamed to Paranisopodus acutus.
Reassessed
edit- Cirrhicera panamensis (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
edit- Paranisopodus acutus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
November 30, 2024
editAssessed
edit- Campsiura (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Coptodera championi (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Gonocephalum sericeum (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
November 29, 2024
editReassessed
editAssessed
edit- Pentacosmia (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
November 28, 2024
editReassessed
edit- Litocerus plagiatus (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
edit- Litocerus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
November 27, 2024
editAssessed
edit- Cicindela floridana (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Litocerus plagiatus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
November 26, 2024
editReassessed
edit- Oberea tripunctata (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)