Main page | Discussion | Open tasks | Assessment | Standards | Newsletter | Participants | Popular Articles | Recent Changes |
Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on NASCAR, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's NASCAR 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 NASCAR}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:NASCAR articles by quality and Category:NASCAR articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{ WikiProject NASCAR}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):
The following values for the class parameter may be used:
The following values for the importance parameter may be used:
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed NASCAR articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance NASCAR articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.
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.
|
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) |
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. |
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:
|
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 |
Label | Criteria | Examples |
---|---|---|
Top | Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. | NASCAR |
High | Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Hans device |
Mid | Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | Road course ringer |
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. | Auggie Vidovich II |
For some of the more numerous types of articles, the following guidelines have been agreed:
Article type | Top | High | Mid | Low |
---|---|---|---|---|
Drivers | Multiple championships | Champions or 10+ wins or Current driver |
2+ wins or 10+ top-fives | Others |
Teams | Multiple championships | Current team or 5+ wins |
1+ wins or 5+ top-fives | Others |
Races | Ever-present | Other current | Former | Non-championship only |
Circuits | Exceptional historical importance | Current circuits | Past circuits of current races |
Other |
Race reports | Exceptional historical importance (e.g. 2001 Daytona 500) |
High historical importance | Some historical importance (title wins, record breakers) |
Other |
NASCAR articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 8 | 1 | 9 | ||||
FL | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 3 | 7 | 51 | 24 | 1 | 86 | |
B | 24 | 41 | 41 | 83 | 189 | ||
C | 40 | 72 | 150 | 748 | 8 | 1,018 | |
Start | 43 | 159 | 661 | 1,731 | 20 | 2,614 | |
Stub | 3 | 38 | 235 | 1,053 | 6 | 1,335 | |
List | 13 | 35 | 26 | 29 | 103 | ||
Category | 1 | 410 | 411 | ||||
Disambig | 47 | 47 | |||||
File | 131 | 131 | |||||
Project | 24 | 24 | |||||
Redirect | 1 | 7 | 11 | 30 | 402 | 451 | |
Template | 2 | 394 | 396 | ||||
Other | 13 | 13 | |||||
Assessed | 114 | 337 | 1,192 | 3,700 | 1,421 | 64 | 6,828 |
Unassessed | 5 | 374 | 379 | ||||
Total | 114 | 337 | 1,192 | 3,705 | 1,421 | 438 | 7,207 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 25,886 | Ω = 4.93 |
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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use
Wikipedia:Peer review instead. Copy this code to add a request: # [[ ]] -- ~~~~
.
ScottFan44 ( talk) 23:25 September 19, 2019
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.
Main page | Discussion | Open tasks | Assessment | Standards | Newsletter | Participants | Popular Articles | Recent Changes |
Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on NASCAR, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's NASCAR 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 NASCAR}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:NASCAR articles by quality and Category:NASCAR articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{ WikiProject NASCAR}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):
The following values for the class parameter may be used:
The following values for the importance parameter may be used:
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed NASCAR articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance NASCAR articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.
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.
|
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) |
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. |
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:
|
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 |
Label | Criteria | Examples |
---|---|---|
Top | Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. | NASCAR |
High | Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Hans device |
Mid | Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | Road course ringer |
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. | Auggie Vidovich II |
For some of the more numerous types of articles, the following guidelines have been agreed:
Article type | Top | High | Mid | Low |
---|---|---|---|---|
Drivers | Multiple championships | Champions or 10+ wins or Current driver |
2+ wins or 10+ top-fives | Others |
Teams | Multiple championships | Current team or 5+ wins |
1+ wins or 5+ top-fives | Others |
Races | Ever-present | Other current | Former | Non-championship only |
Circuits | Exceptional historical importance | Current circuits | Past circuits of current races |
Other |
Race reports | Exceptional historical importance (e.g. 2001 Daytona 500) |
High historical importance | Some historical importance (title wins, record breakers) |
Other |
NASCAR articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 8 | 1 | 9 | ||||
FL | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 3 | 7 | 51 | 24 | 1 | 86 | |
B | 24 | 41 | 41 | 83 | 189 | ||
C | 40 | 72 | 150 | 748 | 8 | 1,018 | |
Start | 43 | 159 | 661 | 1,731 | 20 | 2,614 | |
Stub | 3 | 38 | 235 | 1,053 | 6 | 1,335 | |
List | 13 | 35 | 26 | 29 | 103 | ||
Category | 1 | 410 | 411 | ||||
Disambig | 47 | 47 | |||||
File | 131 | 131 | |||||
Project | 24 | 24 | |||||
Redirect | 1 | 7 | 11 | 30 | 402 | 451 | |
Template | 2 | 394 | 396 | ||||
Other | 13 | 13 | |||||
Assessed | 114 | 337 | 1,192 | 3,700 | 1,421 | 64 | 6,828 |
Unassessed | 5 | 374 | 379 | ||||
Total | 114 | 337 | 1,192 | 3,705 | 1,421 | 438 | 7,207 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 25,886 | Ω = 4.93 |
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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use
Wikipedia:Peer review instead. Copy this code to add a request: # [[ ]] -- ~~~~
.
ScottFan44 ( talk) 23:25 September 19, 2019
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.