This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:
The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history 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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.
The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Military history articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
FAQ
- See also the general assessment FAQ and the project's B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ and A-Class review & criteria FAQ.
- 1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
- The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
- 2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
- Just add {{WPMILHIST}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 3. Someone put a {{WPMILHIST}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
- Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
- 4. Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Military history WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
- 5. How do I rate an article?
- Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
- 6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
- Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- 7. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
- Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
- 8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
- The review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for peer review there.
- 9. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
- 10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
- 11. What about lists?
- Lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status.
- 12. Why is C-class not listed?
- C-class was adopted by the 1.0 Assessment Team in June 2008, but the option of implementing C-class was left to individual projects. A discussion among our project's contributors lead us to forgo the C-class rating in favor of maintaining the Start/B-class system already in use.
- 13. What if I have a question not listed here?
- If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact the project coordinators directly.
Assessment instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):
- {{WPMILHIST| ... | class=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used:
Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status. Also note that C-class is not included on this list, as our project has choosen not to adopt the C-class rating; therefore, all articles within our scope must be assessed either as Start-Class or B-Class.
Pages outside the main namespace (such as portals, images, categories, and user pages) are automatically assigned a class of "NA", indicating that they lie outside the assessment scheme.
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed military history articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Quality scale
| Class |
Criteria |
Formal process |
Example |
 FA |
Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review. |
Featured article candidates |
USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290) (as of July 2008) |
| A |
The article meets the following five criteria:
- A1. The article is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate.
- A2. The article is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail.
- A3. The article has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.
- A4. The article is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant.
- A5. The article contains supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where appropriate.
See also the A-Class review & criteria FAQ.
|
A-Class review |
Citadel of Saigon (as of July 2008) |
 GA |
Reserved for articles that meet the good article criteria and have received good article status. |
Good article nominations |
42nd Military Police Brigade (United States) (as of July 2008) |
| B |
The article meets the following five criteria:
- B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations.
- B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
- B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
- B4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
- B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.
|
May be assigned by any reviewer
A checklist in {{WPMILHIST}} is used to track the criteria (see the project banner instructions for more details)
|
Kenneth Alfred Biggs (as of July 2008) |
| C |
C-class was adopted by the 1.0 Assessment Team in June 2008, but the option of implementing C-class was left to individual projects. A discussion among our project's contributors lead us to forgo the C-class rating in favor of maintaining the Start/B-class system already in use.
C-Class is listed here for illustrative purposes only, and should not be used to assess an article within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. The {{WPMILHIST}} template will not display or support the class. All articles must be assessed either as Start-Class or B-Class.
|
| Start |
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
- A particularly 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
|
May be assigned by any reviewer |
5th Canadian Infantry Brigade (as of July 2008) |
| Stub |
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. |
May be assigned by any reviewer |
Bengal Regiment (as of July 2008) |
Statistics
Current status
Military history
articles |
Importance |
| None |
Total |
| Quality |
| FA |
334 |
334 |
| A |
117 |
117 |
| GA |
366 |
366 |
| B |
2881 |
2881 |
| Start |
39203 |
39203 |
| Stub |
32666 |
32666 |
| Assessed |
75567 |
75567 |
| Unassessed |
281 |
281 |
| Total |
75848 |
75848 |
Task force statistics
FA
GA