Wikipedia:WikiProject Arab world/Assessment

The assessment department of the Arab world WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Arab world 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 WPARAB project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Arab world articles by quality and Category:Arab world articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

FAQ

 * See also the general assessment 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 WPARAB to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
 * 3. Someone put a WPARAB 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 Arab world 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 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 User:FayssalF directly.

Importance scale
The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of the Arab world.

''Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.''

Requests for assessment
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. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department.


 * 1) I would appreciate a reassessment of the Arab League article. It's promotion to B-Class was rejected in June 2007. Significant information has been added since and to me this promotion appears appropriate by now. Moreover, I would like to argue that this article is of high importance to the Arab world in general and, therefore, I want to motivate everybody to contribute. The to do list is still long :-)  T om ea s y T C 12:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) I would appreciate a reassessment of the Arab League article. It's promotion to B-Class was rejected in June 2007. Significant information has been added since and to me this promotion appears appropriate by now. Moreover, I would like to argue that this article is of high importance to the Arab world in general and, therefore, I want to motivate everybody to contribute. The to do list is still long :-)  T om ea s y T C 12:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate that the Thawb page be rated on "qaulity scale". Adamdaley (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 17 August 2010 Baghdad bombings - Currently unassessed. Would like someone from WikiProject Arb World to assess it. Adamdaley (talk) 07:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please list it for peer review instead.


 * Royal Oman Police - Unassessed. Would like a peer review. I have made the article keeping in mind alot of wiki-policies and have tried to be as good at it as possible. Would want to forward it to FA but would like some reviews and assessment!Pranav (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)122.177.179.154 (talk) 13:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Log
A full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.