Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Japan! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Japan-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 WikiProject Japan project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Japan-related articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

You can jump down to get an article assessed.

Frequently asked questions

 * How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
 * Just add WikiProject Japan to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.


 * Someone put the template on an article, but it's not a Japan 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).


 * 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 the articles within our scope 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.


 * Who can assess articles?
 * Any member of WikiProject Japan 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. Editors should also note that assessments of B or A require project consensus, while GA, FA, and FL assessments have associated formal review processes that must be followed.


 * How do I rate an article?: Check the assessment scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article, then follow the guidelines 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.
 * How can I make a request for someone from the project to assess an article? : Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * 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.


 * Where can I get more details or feedback about an article?
 * The peer review process is one that results in a more thorough examination of articles; to ensure project members also view the article, make sure to list it at our peer review page.


 * 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.


 * 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!


 * What about lists?
 * Lists of various kinds are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status. Lists which are pure lists of links, however, should be assessed as list class, as they have no real content to be evaluated.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Quality scale
The scale for assessments is defined at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

These criteria apply to general-content articles. The manual of style provides additional guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.

Each Japan-related article has its assessment included within the WikiProject Japan template, such as. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Japan-related articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

B-Class criteria
Special emphasis is given to the six criteria that B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet:

Importance scale
Priority (or importance) must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the article falls under. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority 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).

Requests for assessment
Archives: 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2018 2019 2020 2021

Please refer to this page when determining if an article meets the individual B-Class criteria checklist items.


 * Graduate School of Management, Globis University - Article was improved significantly. Could I ask someone to reassess the current "Start" rating? I believe it should be good enough for a C, perhaps even a B. Thank you! Furoba (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Sandaime J Soul Brothers - This article has been considerably expanded on and improved since the last time it was assessed. I strongly believe it can be updated for a B rating. Thank you. Takacchin10_10 (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * sports in Japan I don’t know when this article was last assessed or if has ever been assessed but it’s of top class importance and seems well flushed out so I believe it’s deserving of a higher rating although I can not say that I am a contributor towards it but it seems silly for it to stay as such an important article and yet be rated so low

AKB48 I believe it is worthy of between B and A class as it is very very well researched and well written and it’s considered of high importance and is a good enough article that in my humble opinion may one day in the not so far future be worthy of a ga or even fa Thanks Goldsoldier75 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2022 (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.