Wikipedia:WikiProject Utah/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment page of the WikiProject Utah, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Utah related 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 programme.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the WikiProject Utah project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Utah articles by quality and Category:Utah articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

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 Utah to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.


 * 3. Someone put a WikiProject Utah 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 Utah 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.


 * 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. 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.


 * 8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
 * People at Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page.


 * 9. 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.


 * 10. 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!


 * 11. 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.

Instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the Wikiproject Utah project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):



The following values for the class parameter may be used:


 * FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Utah articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured articles)
 * A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Utah articles; should only be used for articles that have made considerable progress upon the GA version, an article that is undergoing FA review would be A-class)
 * GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Utah articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as good articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Utah articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Utah articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Utah articles)
 * NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Utah pages) Note: For WikiProject Utah, non-article pages should instead be tagged with WikiProject Utah category or WikiProject Utah template. Disambiguation pages generally don't get project tags.

The following values for the importance parameter may be used:
 * Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Utah articles)
 * High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Utah articles)
 * Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Utah articles)
 * Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Utah articles)

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

Quality scale
The quality "class" an article receives should follow Wikipedia's regular guidelines for quality found below.
 * Articles which have not been formerly evaluated, or which have failed a good article review, should not be assigned a quality rating higher than B class. Above that an article needs to go through a formal review process.


 * See Good article candidates
 * See Featured article review
 * See Category:Wikipedia editorial validation

Notes on importance to WikiProject Utah
This is only for assessment of articles that fall within the Utah WikiProject.

For determining the Importance rating (Low, Mid, High, Top) please keep the following in mind:
 * Keep a historical perspective.
 * Keep a geographical perspective.
 * Every item in the Project is already important and notable, otherwise it would not be on Wikipedia.


 * Approximate breakdown of the percentage of articles in each category as a goal.
 * Low=55%
 * Mid=30%
 * High=15%
 * Top=1%

People

 * Governors should automatically be in the mid category. If they also served in the federal government or some other major accomplishments/contributions then they should move up to High, and up to Top if they did something else special.
 * U.S. Congress people should be in the Low category unless they served in a leadership role (minority/majority leader, committee chair, etc.).
 * State level politicians (supreme court judges, members of the house/senate, mayors, secretary of state, etc.) should remain in the Low category unless they served in multiple places in both legislature and sec. of state, or had a leadership role in their branch (Chief Justice, Speaker of the House, etc.) then up to Mid. If they did more than they probably served in Congress or as governor and would fall under those guidelines. If they served in a leadership role, and won another statewide position, and had some other major accomplishment then High.
 * Pioneers should remain in the Low category unless they have a major statewide historical significance or received national attention, then to Mid. If they helped to found a town still in existence and served in the state government then also to Mid. If more, then to High  as the impetus for the prov government, and Top if more significant  who is designated as the Father of Utah by the state).
 * Athletes also should remain as Low, unless they are a member of a Sports Hall of Fame then to Mid. If they are also a member of a national sports hall of fame and spent most of their career in Utah then High. Someone who attained national prominence and has an event named after them would justify a Top.
 * Other people: Local significance only then Low. Statewide impact then Mid. National prominence then High. All of these and long-term impact then Top.

Geography

 * Cities/communities should go into the Low category unless they are the county seat then Mid. If they are one of the ten most populous cities, then High. If the most populous city or the state capitol then Top.
 * Physical geography articles should go into the Low category unless they cover multiple counties, then Mid. If they affect a large number of counties, then High. If they tend to be what people know about the state and affect many counties then Top.

Entities

 * Articles on companies/organizations/governmental bodies should go into the Low category, unless they have an impact beyond the local level then Mid.
 * For instance a company in the Fortune 1000 should go into Mid, Fortune 500 into High, and the state’s largest employer into Top.
 * Organizations such as museums or libraries would move to Mid if they have a regional impact, and High if they are of a national stature.
 * Government institutions with large operations throughout the state would be Mid, while the heads of the three branches of government would be High (Governor of Utah).

Events

 * Event articles should go into the Low category unless it had a long-term impact over a significant region (as in more than just one county) or a statewide impact over a short period, then Mid. If it had statewide and long term impact then High. If it has a statewide, long-term impact and receives national attention then Top.

Other items

 * For everything else, the default should be Low. Then if there is some sort of significant reason to move it up to Mid do so if the item had more than just a local (city, county) plus a lasting effect of more than a year or so. If the effects are larger or longer term then High. If it helps to define what Utah is to people, then Top.

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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use Peer review instead.


 * High Valley Transit: I have a conflict of interest with this article as I have created it, and I thus want an outside opinion on its rating.  mAyLiNgOeEd   (Talk to me!) (See what else I did on Wikipedia!!📜)

Add new requests above

A Class assessment
If you feel that an article meets the criteria listed above for A Class status, please list it below. A minimum of two uninvolved editors will review the article based on the A Class criteria and determine if the article passes or fails. In the event of a tie, the article will not be promoted to A Class. Reviewers will use the GA quick fail criteria as a screening process. Caution: this process may take several weeks.
 * Add A Class requests below

Assessment Log

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