Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Protected areas! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's protected areas 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 WikiProject Protected areas project banner. The different values cause the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Protected areas articles by quality and Category:Protected areas articles by importance.

Current status

 * Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Protected areas articles by quality log

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 WikiProject Protected areas to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
 * 3. Someone put a WikiProject Protected areas 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 WikiProject Protected areas 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 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. Where can I get more comments about an article? : Peer review can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
 * 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.  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.
 * 9. 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!
 * 10. 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.

Quality
Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status.

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 at the top.

Protected areas of Victoria (Australia)

 * Protected areas of Victoria. Would like reassessment after recent edits, cleaning up, and updating of data. --ThylacineHunter  (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Conservation community

 * Conservation community. Did not yet have a rating as part of the Protected areas project. Would like assessment after recent significant edits/clean up. Rosenbergwrite (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Nagi Dam Bird Sanctuary

 * Nagi Dam Bird Sanctuary. Significant changes to the content and structure have been made. The use of jargon has been reduced. Hilfiger28 (talk)

National Parks Autonomous Agency

 * National Parks Autonomous Agency. I significantly expanded the article. TheRichic Escudo de España (mazonado).svg  (Messages here)  15:43, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Hinulugang Taktak National Park

 * Hinulugang Taktak Arius1998 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument

 * Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument. Brianga (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Assessment Request: List of national parks of England and Wales
I have just completed a List article named List of national parks of England and Wales, having been inspired to create it after I read the List of national parks of the United States. I would very much like to have the review and revision necessary to make this article as good as it can be.Kwib (talk) 11:26, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I only looked at it briefly, but could you find a way to connect the numbers in your top figure with the parks in the list so viewers will know which number corresponds to which park. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Assessment Request: Riding Mountain National Park
I significantly expanded and revised the Riding Mountain National Park article. I am a newer editor and would greatly appreciate it being assessed. Thank you ahead of time! Trek104 (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Just an update, I took the initiative to change the status from a Stub to Start class as it is definitely not a stub anymore. I will await outside feedback on whether it should be rated higher than that. Thanks!Trek104 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I read through the article and you've done a good job expanding it. Some work still needs to be done if you want to take it to GA status though. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Requests for A-Class status
to be set up