Wikipedia:WikiProject World Heritage Sites/Assessment

This is the WikiProject World Heritage Sites assessment summary page. See WP:1.0 and WP:WVWP for more information. For World Heritage Sites articles, see Category:World Heritage Sites.

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

FAQ

 * 1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? : Just add WikiProject World Heritage Sites to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
 * 2. Someone put a WikiProject World Heritage Sites template on an article, but it's not a World Heritage Sites 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).
 * 3. 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 articles in our subject areas, 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.
 * 4. How can I get an article rated? : Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * 5. Who can assess articles? : Any member of the World Heritage Sites WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
 * 6. 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. 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.
 * 9. 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!
 * 10. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? : A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
 * 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 any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the WikiProject World Heritage Sites project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax)

When rating for quality, compare it to articles of similar quality. Do not give a rating of GA or FA without the article having undergone the appropriate reviews. The quality of articles is highly subject to change, and may need to be re-assessed.

Because importance ratings are subjective, it is important to leave a comment on articles rated Low, High or Top. Reviewers should consult about ratings of High and Top, to ensure that the article is not given a too high importance rating. The importance rating should not change, and any change should have general agreement from the review team.

If it is possible, please rate for both importance and quality at the same time. It will save other reviewers from having to reassess the same article later. Similarly, if it is possible to leave comments on improving the article, please do so also, unless comments have already been left by another reviewer or WikiProject - since we are leaving comments on improving the quality, it should not matter from which WikiProject the comments come.

B-Class
The article meets the following six criteria:
 * 1) It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
 * 2) It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
 * 3) It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
 * 4) It is free from major grammatical errors.
 * 5) It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
 * 6) It is written from a neutral point of view

Importance Scale
The following values may be used for the importance parameter:


 * Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance World Heritage Sites articles)
 * High (adds articles to Category:High-importance World Heritage Sites articles)
 * Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance World Heritage Sites articles)
 * Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance World Heritage Sites 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.

Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance World Heritage Sites articles. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Importance scale
The article's importance, regardless of its quality

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. Simply add at the top of the list. A reviewer will attend to it in due time. Note that this is not the queue for contested assessments. That can be found on the Assessment talk page.


 * 1)  has been redirected to Chagres, which has been completely rewritten. Please assess either/both. Thanks. Matjamoe (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1)  has been redirected to Chagres, which has been completely rewritten. Please assess either/both. Thanks. Matjamoe (talk) 03:57, 14 December 2012 (UTC)