Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharks/Assessment

Article assessment is the process by which shark related articles are sorted into different qualities. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles.

Assessment 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. Shark articles have additional criteria/guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for an article of each class; see the talk page for discussion of these.

Each shark related article has its assessment included inside the template, such as. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's discussion pagefor more information.

Specific requirements
An article about a species has the following requirements:
 * A taxobox - Following the guidelines set out by the Tree of Life WikiProject
 * A picture in the taxobox - Clearly identifiable image of the species
 * Introduction - A short summary-like paragraph
 * Naming - Why the species has that name, names in other languages, etc.
 * Distribution - Information about where they are found - oceanic, reef, etc.
 * Distribution map - Follow the guidelines on the template shark article to put a map at the bottom of the taxobox
 * Anatomy - Body shape, respiration, life histories, etc.
 * Diet - What they eat
 * Behaviour - description of the behaviour exhibited by the species
 * Reproduction - how the species mates and reproduces
 * References - A references section at the end, preferably with inline sourcing throughout the article

Assessment guidelines
The following are specific assessment guidelines specifically for shark related articles.
 * Stub class- No structure, only brief sentence or two - Use
 * Start class- Some structure, brief paragraph - Use
 * B class- Decent structure, at least one paragraph for most required headers, inline sourcing, includes distribution map and at least one image - Use
 * GA class- All required headers with good amount of text, a few relevant images. Should have passed GA - Use
 * A class- Everything is fully mentioned, sub-sections for larger headers, cite web formatting, should be nearly ready for FAC - Use
 * FA class- Passed FAC - Use

Assessment process
To create a new assessment discussion here, add the article to be assessed in a level three (e.g. ===Article name=== ) sub-section of the Article assessments section below. Give the article's exact name in the title with a wikilink. Finally, add the "assessed=yes" parameter to the template near the top of the article's talk page.

After the header add your comments in a table like this:

Substituting CLASS for what you think the class is, IMPORTANCE for what you think the importance is and REMARKS for any comments you have on the article and then sign off with four tildes ( ~ ) after the REMARKS.

When filling in the CLASS use the class templates to colour the table cell:

And for IMPORTANCE use the importance templates:

Current practice is that Stub-Start-B assessments are done by individual editors when looking at an article. Before upgrading to A-class the article should be discussed here to make sure everyone agrees. Once the article is A-class you should probably get general peer review on it and then follow the normal process for making the article a FA article. Peer review (PR) and FA candidates (FAC) should be announced here to get more specific comments from the editors.

Article assessments
Automatically updated list of shark articles and their status.


 * List
 * Log

Megalodon

 * Proper inline references have been provided in the new revision of this article. The over-all content of this article has also been considerably improved. LeGenD 03:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article have been submitted for GA class. LeGenD 09:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Tiger shark

 * COTF finished, what should we do now, reapply for GA or maybe get a peer-review, or just leave it for a bit? chris_huh 11:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should reapply, think the text is much better now, maybe we need some more references, I will continue to work on that for a while, but I have very little time for wiki for the next week or so! Stefan 09:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I nominated it again, lets see what happens. Stefan 08:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)