Wikipedia:WikiProject Eurovision/Assessment

{| width="100%" cellpadding="10" style="text-align: left; background-color: #FFFFFF; border: 2px solid #FF0000; border-radius: 8px; padding:0.5em; box-shadow: 10px 5px 5px #000000;" {| width="100%" cellspacing="10" style="background:none; text-align:center; font-family:Helvetica;" ! style="border:1px solid #FF0000; background-color:#FF0000; padding:0.2em 0.4em; font-size:120%; font-weight:bold; color:#FFFFFF;"| Assessment
 * colspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;border:3px solid #FF0000 ; background-color:#FFFFFF;"|
 * colspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;border:3px solid #FF0000 ; background-color:#FFFFFF;"|
 * align=left|
 * align=left|

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Eurovision! This department focuses on assessing the quality and importance of Wikipedia's Eurovision articles. Ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories.

Introduction
The assessment system used by WikiProject Eurovision to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.

Criteria
Quality ratings are intended to assess the quality of an article by using the standard assessment scale. An article's quality rating is independent of its importance rating.

Non-articles
Non-articles such as categories, disambiguation pages, files, portals, project pages, redirects, and templates are not assessed on the quality scale. Simply adding to the talk page will automatically give a non-article its appropriate rating.

Processes
This section describes the different processes used to assess the quality of Project Eurovision articles.

Individual review
The individual review process is used for all assessment activities up to the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.

Article authors are free to assess their own articles under this process. However, by convention, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at the assessment request page.

Peer review
The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.

By convention, Project Eurovision articles are typically listed in the history section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.

Good article review
The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria.

Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.

Featured article/list candidacy
The featured article candidacy and featured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets the featured article or list criteria.

Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.

Instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the project banner on its talk page:
 * Become familiar with the quality scale and importance scale as listed below.
 * Then for each review:
 * 1) Find an article related to this project, and tag it if necessary.
 * 2) Read the article and analyse it.
 * 3) Place your assessment in the  banner on the articles talk page (according to the scales below).
 * 4) Unless the reasoning for an assessment is self-evident, such as assessing a very short article as Stub-class and Low-importance, please consider placing a summary of your assessment on the article's talk page. This should include a rationale for your choice of ratings, and possibly suggestions for future contributors on how to improve the article's quality rating. If the assessment is likely to be controversial you may wish to leave a note about it on the main project talk page.
 * 5) For events that have yet to take place, but still require content being added with information of the progress in the run-up to the event itself, add "future=y" to the banner to ensure relevant future articles are flagged.

Quality scale
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
 * FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Eurovision articles)
 * FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Eurovision articles)
 * GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Eurovision articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Eurovision articles)
 * C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Eurovision articles)
 * List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Eurovision articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Eurovision articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Eurovision articles)
 * All non-articles including categories, disambiguation pages, files, portals, project pages, redirects, and templates will automatically be categorized appropriately by simply adding to the talk page. For redirects, please include the importance parameter (detailed in the next section), as this assists in categorising redirects.

Importance scale
Importance ratings are intended to assess the importance of an article to the project, and this guide acts as a general standard by which to measure WikiProject Eurovision articles. An importance rating is independent of the quality rating and the importance of an article to WikiProject Eurovision may be different to that of other projects.


 * Top-importance: For...
 * ...articles that define the project scope, such as Eurovision (network)
 * ...the main article for each contest the project covers, such as the Eurovision Song Contest


 * High-importance: For...
 * ...key articles and lists about a particular contest such as Voting at the Eurovision Song Contest
 * ...articles that describe a contest for each year, such as Eurovision Song Contest 2015
 * ...articles that describe a country's participation in a contest, such as United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest
 * ...national selection articles which cover multiple years of entry, such as Melodifestivalen


 * Mid-importance: For...
 * ...articles that describe a country's participation in a contest for one year only, such as United Kingdom in the Eurovision Song Contest 2015
 * ...national selection articles which cover only one year of entry, such as Melodifestivalen 2015


 * Low-importance: For articles that are relevant to contests covered by this project but are not a core part of the project, including...
 * ...biographical articles, such as Alexander Rybak
 * ...articles on songs, such as Fairytale (Alexander Rybak song)
 * ...articles on venues, such as Baku Crystal Hall
 * ...articles on national broadcasters, such as BBC

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 prioritise work on these articles. It is also utilised 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 to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
 * 3. Someone put a 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 WikiProject Eurovision 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. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to? : For the most part, yes in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be made here). However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.
 * 6. 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.
 * 7. Can I request that someone else rate an article? : Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * 8. 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.
 * 9. Where can I get more comments about an article? : The peer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
 * 10. 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.
 * 11. 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!
 * 12. 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 requests
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. If you assess an article, please strike it off using Strike-through text  so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Old and fulfilled requests are periodically removed from the list.

Please note:
 * Only a small group of editors watch this list, and as a result, response times to assessment requests can vary from instant to over a week.
 * If you aim for an article to be promoted to GA or FA class, please consider requesting a peer review as well, so the article can be exposed to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors.
 * The assessment request process is not intended to replace the Good article nominations and Featured article candidates processes.

Assessment backlogs
Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:


 * The current status of Category:Unassessed Eurovision articles = articles unassessed. After articles have been assessed, they are automatically removed from this category.

Logs

 * An automatically generated log of assessment activity is available here.
 * To manually update the assessment table, [//tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/update.fcgi click here] to immediately run the bot for your WikiProject.
 * Check out the results at quick glance by visiting [//tools.wmflabs.org/enwp10/cgi-bin/table.fcgi this page] and selecting your WikiProject.