Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Electronics WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's electronic related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the Electron project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Electronic articles by quality and Category:Electronic articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

FAQ

 * 1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? : Just add Electron to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
 * 2. Someone put a Electron template on an article, but it's not a Electronic related topic. 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).
 * 3. What is the purpose of the article ratings? : The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles.  Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers.  Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
 * 4. How can I get an article rated? : Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * 5. Who can assess articles? : Any member of the Electronics WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
 * 6. 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. 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.
 * 9. Aren't the ratings subjective? : Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
 * 10. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? : A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
 * 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 any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions
The following values may be used for the importance parameter:


 * Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance electronic articles)
 * High (adds articles to Category:High-importance electronic articles)
 * Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance electronic articles)
 * Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance electronic articles)

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance electronic articles. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

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 collectors.

Note that the rating need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; equally well-known topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which this is the case. Thus, the rating given to topics which may seem obscure to an editor from one country—but which are well known in another—should correspond to the higher level of notability in the second country.

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.
 * needs reassessment since it is no longer just a list, expanded the article and added several more references.-- YashPratap 1912 (CONT.) 02:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this a WP:PROMO and given it a C rating. Also added it to WP:TELEVISION ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)