Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture
Shortcut

Welcome to the Assessment Department of the Architecture WikiProject. This group focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's architecture 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.

Assessment is done in a distributed system (with many people and automated "bots") when values are included for the two "parameters" in the {{Architecture}} project banner template, as described in the syntax below. The different values cause the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Architecture articles by quality and Category:Architecture articles by importance.

Statistics

edit
Architecture articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 7 22 58 80 167
  FL 11 20 63 94
  A 1 1
  GA 8 52 218 854 28 1,160
B 119 230 587 1,412 927 3,275
C 133 437 1,421 6,924 3,229 12,144
Start 84 782 3,387 24,877 8,940 38,070
Stub 71 867 17,883 6,201 25,022
List 8 47 191 5,138 359 5,743
Category 48,397 48,397
Disambig 157 157
File 1,598 1,598
Portal 8 8
Project 127 127
Template 1,892 1,892
NA 4 79 1,679 1,762
Other 231 231
Assessed 359 1,652 6,754 57,310 54,089 19,684 139,848
Unassessed 2 59 61
Total 359 1,652 6,754 57,312 54,089 19,743 139,909
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 401,206 Ω = 5.03
  • 6.7% List-Class
  • 29.2% Stub-Class
  • 44.4% Start-Class
  • 14.2% C-Class
  • 3.8% B-Class
  • 1.4% GA-Class
  • 0% A-Class
  • 0.3% FA-Class
  • 0.1% remaining
  • Quality operations: A bot-generated daily log which lists articles Reassessed, Assessed and Removed.
  • Popular pages: List of top articles with the most frequent views, updated monthly.


FAQ

edit
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 {{Architecture}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{Architecture}} 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?
Anyone, as long as you are prepared to defend your decision. If you have a close connection to the subject consider requesting assesment from another project member.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the article grading scheme 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 that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
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. 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 that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
8. 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!
9. 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, leave a message on the talk page.

Assessment instructions

edit

The {{Architecture}} template may already exist on the talk page of an article, and anyone can add the template to a talk page. There are two values that can be used in the template for rating an article. Remember that these ratings are not absolute and can be changed at any time. The quality and importance of a topic is to be considered in the wide context of Architecture in all regions of the world throughout all of recorded history. The main criteria are suitability of the topic for inclusion in an encyclopedia and complete citation of source information.

Quality assessment

edit

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Architecture}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

Basic template syntax

{{WikiProject Architecture| class=Stub | ...}}

  • The word "class" starts with a lowercase c. Values can be Stub, stub or STUB, for example

The following values for "class=" may be used:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Architecture articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 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
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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:
  • A 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
 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 assessment

edit
Basic syntax

{{Architecture| class=stub | importance=Low}}

  • The word "importance" to start with a lowercase i. Values start with Uppercase, e.g. Low

Need: The article's priority or importance, regardless of its quality

Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia Regional and historic styles, world famous architects and works of architecture; "Most famous or beautiful, ancient or preserved, etc." may appear in the text; article that covers several topics
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge Very important buildings and architects
Mid Subject fills in more minor details Interesting buildings and architectural elements
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest Other buildings and narrow topics
NA Not Applicable Used for Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, Template, NA/Redirects, and Other/Drafts pages
None Unassessed Unassessed-importance Architecture articles


Additional guidelines from the National Register of Historic Places:

Distinctive characteristics of a building type, period, or method of construction, represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction

For more information, refer to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic

edit

Two other templates can be used to replace {{WikiProject Architecture}}, as appropriate:

{{Planning}}
 Urban studies and planning Unassessed
 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
{{Landscape}}


Requests for 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 at the top:

  1. Architectural heritage - New article, not categorized to architecture User:Le Prince De Conde
  2. Rococo architecture - Was assigned to visual arts wikiproject instead of architecture, remains unassessed User:Le Prince De Conde
  3. Banque de l'Indochine Building, Shanghai - Remains unassessed.Daftation 🗩 🖉 10:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Hollin Hills Historic District – Significant expansion of article with numerous references from official sources, and several new images. User:Djharrity) (talk 14:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Evesham Bell Tower - Expanded the article by over 32,000 characters. Bellminsterboy (talk) 22:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  6. St Mary-le-Bow - Total rewrite, significant expansion by 25,000 characters. Bellminsterboy (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opus reticulatum - Expanded article by approximately 2000 words and images including captions to more closely reflect academic sources Amaaaai (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2022 (AEST)
  8. Architectural design optimization - Expanded content by an additional 2000 words, added numerous references to academic journals, conferences etc. Added some images, but struggled to find many that were under a Creative Commons license. Will continue to work on lead. Timidfrog (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Les Espaces d'Abraxas - Expanded the content by an extra 2000 words. Lead still needs some work, also trying to find photos I can use, as photos of the building are not in the Creative Commons due to French law. Greenroof1234 (talk) 10:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Corporate architecture expanded this stub article significantly by adding sections; definition, function, history and principles/strategies. Would be great if this article was reassessed as it may not be stub level anymore. Unicourse (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2022 (AEST)
  11. Hall of Mental Cultivation - Expanded the content significantly, cited and added academic sources, added images. Lead will still be edited Atnauseum (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Physical plant - Expanded the content and cited sources Rewritten significantly. Added academic sources. Johnnyhopkins214 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Chhajja - overhanging eave or roof covering found in Indian architecture. Rewritten completely with cited sources (15th November 2020) - Theodorejordan10 (talk) 11:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Rayonnant Gothic architectural style
  15. Flamboyant (architectural style)- Article expanded considerably within the past few weeks (June 2020).
  16. Ministry of Defence Main Building (United Kingdom)– Created article last year, needs assessed. Thx811 (talk) 18:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Wat Phra Dhammakaya - Has now been assessed at C-level, and nominated for good article now. Feel free to help review.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Goddards House and Garden - new article about an Grade I Arts and Crafts movement house, without an architecture importance assessment yet (has already been assessed by project Yorkshire) EdwardUK (talk) 22:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Innsbruck Cathedral. I made significant changes to the article since its initial assessment in January 2015 and would appreciate a new assessment. Bede735 (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  20. List of tallest buildings in Miami: Miami has the third largest skyline in the US [1] yet the article is rated low importance in this category. A lot of effort has gone into this list to improve and update it. I would appreciate other opinions, I think at least it qualifies for a mid rating. Thanks. 1305cj (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Abu Hanifa Mosque: I would appreciate if it gets assessed after lots of hard work that was devoted into it. Hashima20 (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  22. History of Roman and Byzantine domes is currently rated as Start-class, but needs re-assessment. As the main editor who has contributed to it, I don't think I should rate it myself. AmateurEditor (talk) 13:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I've added a sentence in the lede to Ronan Point. This virtually new building which partially collapsed in 1968, changed UK building regs and practices & I note features in 1968 world events. My instinct is to mark it as top importance but architecture isn't my area of expertise. I know it needs a lot more sources but could someone assess the importance. Thanks in advance. JRPG (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I have added a lot more details and information regarding an article I would like an assessment of importance on Endeavour House. It is a start class and would like an independent rating, thanks. Wrightie99 (talk) 22:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I Would like an assessment of the importance of St James' Church, Sydney which is a Featured Article? It appeared on the main page on 25 July 2014. Thanks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  26. La Luz del Mundo Church - Extensive cleanup and referencing. Article has been revised and expanded. Ajaxfiore (talk) 03:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Lululaund: I have added quite a bit of description, history and citations to this article. Its no longer a stub, would someone like to give it an independent rating. Lumos3 (talk) 11:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad The architecture section has been completely restructured, with much additional information provided and sourced. I believe this is now a well written article reflecting a unique building. TheWilliamson (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Achaemenid architecture this article took me two months and some 30 sources mostly books, 3 of which I had to read page to page, to make. The article is about Achaemenid architecture and description of its individual projects. 90% of sources are derived from renown architects/architectural hisotrians including James Fergusson, Ronald W. Ferrier, and Aedeen Cremin. Your input would be appreciated. Dr. Persi (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for A-Class status

edit

If you have made significant changes to a B-class or GA-class article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please list it at Wikiproject Architecture Peer Review stating in the introduction you would like the article reviewed to see if it is A-class.

  1. World Trade Center -- I've assessed it as a B-class article since it has not had a review, but believe it to be an A-class article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Upholder (talk • contribs)
    1. As above - you need to submit to WP:ARCHPR for review of B-class articles. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "List of tallest buildings in the United States".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture/Assessment&oldid=1250206072"