Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Firefly task force/Assessment

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

Frequently asked questions

 * How can I get my article rated? : Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * Who can assess articles? : Any member of the Firefly WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
 * 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, 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!

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

Instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the WPFirefly project banner on its talk page:

The following values may be used for the class parameter:


 * FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Firefly articles)
 * A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Firefly articles)
 * GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Firefly articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Firefly articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Firefly articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Firefly articles)
 * NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Firefly pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Firefly articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:


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

Importance
Importance must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-importance" in one context may be only "Mid-importance" in another. 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).

Consider a hierarchy such as History -> History of Europe -> History of Poland -> Polish kings and queens. An article labeled as "Top-importance" for the subject of history would probably warrant inclusion in V0.5, V1.0 and other releases. A "Top-importance" article for the history of Poland would be a reasonable candidate for inclusion, but most "Top-importance" articles on Polish kings & queens would probably not be included in early releases. Nevertheless such ranking within a subject area is very helpful in deciding which articles are included first as the scope of the Wikipedia 1.0 project expands. Quality articles which are not considered to be on topics important enough for inclusion on V0.5 will be held in a held nominations page, ready for inclusion as the scope expands.

Requesting an 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.


 * Companion (Firefly)

Assessment log

 * The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Worklist

 * The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.