Project overview | Tasks | Curation | Guides | Awards | Our classicists | Talk page |
The Curation and Assessment department assesses the quality of Wikipedia's classical Greece and Rome articles. Article quality ratings are used within Wikipedia, and this WikiProject, to recognise excellent contributions, identify topics in need of further work, and support the external Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the Talk page.
Quality ratings: | |||
---|---|---|---|
FA | A | GA | B |
C | Start | Stub | FL |
List | FM | NA | |
Importance ratings: | |||
Top | High | Mid | Low |
Bottom | NA | ||
Unassessed categories: | |||
Unknown importance | Unknown quality |
As do most WikiProjects, we assess our articles for Quality and Importance. Quality designations are made according to a set of generally-accepted criteria, which are summarised below. Lower quality designations are conferred by individual project members. Higher quality designations are conferred once the article has passed a peer review by a group of Classics editors (for A-class status) or the relevant Wikipedia-wide assessment systems (for GA-class or FA-class status).
Requests for assessment of an article into B-class or any lower rank may be made at #Requests for assessment. You should not assess an article you have made substantial contributions to, because – self-evidently – it is less likely you will be able to fairly and accurately judge your own work.
It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. We each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area.
Class | Criteria | Assessment process | Example | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FA | The article meets all the
featured article criteria.
|
Featured article candidacy (FAC) | Euclidean algorithm ( as of May 2009) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. Peer review may help. | ||||||
A | The article meets all of the
A-Class criteria.
|
A-Class review at WT:CGR. | Late Roman army ( as of September 2008) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: 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. | ||||||
GA | The article meets all the
Good article criteria and has been externally reviewed against them.
|
Good article nomination | Cynicism ( as of May 2010) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | ||||||
B | The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|
Individual review | Battle of Utica (203 BC)) ( as of November 2010) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | ||||||
C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. It meets B1 or B2 and all of B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
|
Individual review | Mark Antony ( as of November 2010) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. | ||||||
Start | A classics article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|
Individual review | Ancient Greek comedy ( as of November 2010) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Any editing or additional material will be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be prioritised. Bear in mind that some topics may simply not have anything more than rudimentary data available on them – for example, many topics from the early Roman Republic and the Roman Kingdom. | ||||||
Stub | A very basic description of a topic clearly related to classics.
|
Individual review | Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (consul 133 BC) ( as of February 2010) | ||||
See also: Category:Classical Greece and Rome articles by quality and the generic criteria. |
Importance | Criteria | Example |
---|---|---|
Top | Subject is a core topic in the Classics or is universally known of. |
Ancient Rome Alexander the Great Sparta |
High | Subject is not a key topic of the Classics but nevertheless is of interest to most. |
Amphitheatre Socrates Classical architecture |
Mid | Subject is of interest to scholars of the Classics but may be only peripherally known of by others. |
Roman Britain Amphictyonic League |
Low | Subject is of little interest, except to Classical scholars. |
Archaic smile Isthmian Games Pseudo-Plutarch |
NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, disambiguations, categories, templates, etc. | Category:Classical Latin literature |
??? | Subject importance has not yet been assessed. | See: Category:Unknown-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles |
Assessments of importance do not, and should not, reflect the importance of the subject within academia or classical studies, but rather its importance to an average reader with no background in the subject.
Articles that are unassessed are automatically indexed at Category:Unassessed Classical Greece and Rome articles. In addition, any editor may explicitly, directly request assessment of their classics article by a project member.
Old requests for assessment can be browsed in the page history.
As described above, A-Class status is conferred on an article by recommendation of at least two reviewers. Reviewers are usually members of the WikiProject. Any editor may propose an article for A-Class Review, which is conducted on the project talk page, WT:CGR. Recommendations for promotion must exceed recommendations against promotion by a margin of at least 2:1; unanimous recommendations are preferred. Reviewers must read the article in its entirety, scrutinise its contents carefully and in detail, and thoughtfully compare the article to the A-Class assessment criteria. Reviewers are expected to post their assessment, with complete comments and an explanation, onto the review page; they are also expected to afford the nominator an appropriate period of time in which to address rectifiable concerns. Reviews will be closed by an uninvolved project member after a suitable period of time; in the case of successful nominations, A-Class status will be conferred onto the article at this time.
A-Class Reviews are conducted using {{ WPCGR/ACR}}. To start a new A-Class Review with the template automatically filled in, click the button below:
|
The following task queues are backlogged and require the attention of experienced, knowledgeable Wikipedians. Tasks in the queue do not need to be cleared by a project member or somebody with knowledge in Classics, though help is readily available to Wikipedians with expertise that does not extend to Ancient Greece and Rome who require it.
Project overview | Tasks | Curation | Guides | Awards | Our classicists | Talk page |
The Curation and Assessment department assesses the quality of Wikipedia's classical Greece and Rome articles. Article quality ratings are used within Wikipedia, and this WikiProject, to recognise excellent contributions, identify topics in need of further work, and support the external Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the Talk page.
Quality ratings: | |||
---|---|---|---|
FA | A | GA | B |
C | Start | Stub | FL |
List | FM | NA | |
Importance ratings: | |||
Top | High | Mid | Low |
Bottom | NA | ||
Unassessed categories: | |||
Unknown importance | Unknown quality |
As do most WikiProjects, we assess our articles for Quality and Importance. Quality designations are made according to a set of generally-accepted criteria, which are summarised below. Lower quality designations are conferred by individual project members. Higher quality designations are conferred once the article has passed a peer review by a group of Classics editors (for A-class status) or the relevant Wikipedia-wide assessment systems (for GA-class or FA-class status).
Requests for assessment of an article into B-class or any lower rank may be made at #Requests for assessment. You should not assess an article you have made substantial contributions to, because – self-evidently – it is less likely you will be able to fairly and accurately judge your own work.
It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. We each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area.
Class | Criteria | Assessment process | Example | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FA | The article meets all the
featured article criteria.
|
Featured article candidacy (FAC) | Euclidean algorithm ( as of May 2009) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. Peer review may help. | ||||||
A | The article meets all of the
A-Class criteria.
|
A-Class review at WT:CGR. | Late Roman army ( as of September 2008) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: 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. | ||||||
GA | The article meets all the
Good article criteria and has been externally reviewed against them.
|
Good article nomination | Cynicism ( as of May 2010) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | ||||||
B | The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|
Individual review | Battle of Utica (203 BC)) ( as of November 2010) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | ||||||
C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. It meets B1 or B2 and all of B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
|
Individual review | Mark Antony ( as of November 2010) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. | ||||||
Start | A classics article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|
Individual review | Ancient Greek comedy ( as of November 2010) | ||||
⇧ | Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Any editing or additional material will be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be prioritised. Bear in mind that some topics may simply not have anything more than rudimentary data available on them – for example, many topics from the early Roman Republic and the Roman Kingdom. | ||||||
Stub | A very basic description of a topic clearly related to classics.
|
Individual review | Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi (consul 133 BC) ( as of February 2010) | ||||
See also: Category:Classical Greece and Rome articles by quality and the generic criteria. |
Importance | Criteria | Example |
---|---|---|
Top | Subject is a core topic in the Classics or is universally known of. |
Ancient Rome Alexander the Great Sparta |
High | Subject is not a key topic of the Classics but nevertheless is of interest to most. |
Amphitheatre Socrates Classical architecture |
Mid | Subject is of interest to scholars of the Classics but may be only peripherally known of by others. |
Roman Britain Amphictyonic League |
Low | Subject is of little interest, except to Classical scholars. |
Archaic smile Isthmian Games Pseudo-Plutarch |
NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, disambiguations, categories, templates, etc. | Category:Classical Latin literature |
??? | Subject importance has not yet been assessed. | See: Category:Unknown-importance Classical Greece and Rome articles |
Assessments of importance do not, and should not, reflect the importance of the subject within academia or classical studies, but rather its importance to an average reader with no background in the subject.
Articles that are unassessed are automatically indexed at Category:Unassessed Classical Greece and Rome articles. In addition, any editor may explicitly, directly request assessment of their classics article by a project member.
Old requests for assessment can be browsed in the page history.
As described above, A-Class status is conferred on an article by recommendation of at least two reviewers. Reviewers are usually members of the WikiProject. Any editor may propose an article for A-Class Review, which is conducted on the project talk page, WT:CGR. Recommendations for promotion must exceed recommendations against promotion by a margin of at least 2:1; unanimous recommendations are preferred. Reviewers must read the article in its entirety, scrutinise its contents carefully and in detail, and thoughtfully compare the article to the A-Class assessment criteria. Reviewers are expected to post their assessment, with complete comments and an explanation, onto the review page; they are also expected to afford the nominator an appropriate period of time in which to address rectifiable concerns. Reviews will be closed by an uninvolved project member after a suitable period of time; in the case of successful nominations, A-Class status will be conferred onto the article at this time.
A-Class Reviews are conducted using {{ WPCGR/ACR}}. To start a new A-Class Review with the template automatically filled in, click the button below:
|
The following task queues are backlogged and require the attention of experienced, knowledgeable Wikipedians. Tasks in the queue do not need to be cleared by a project member or somebody with knowledge in Classics, though help is readily available to Wikipedians with expertise that does not extend to Ancient Greece and Rome who require it.