Welcome to the assessment department of the Antarctica WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Antarctica related 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 {{WikiProject Antarctica}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Antarctica articles by quality and Category:Antarctica articles by importance, 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 Antarctica WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- 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.
- 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
Quality assessments
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Antarctica}} project banner on its talk page:
After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.
Quality scale
Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Antarctica}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Antarctica| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top |
High |
Mid |
Low |
??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance Antarctica articles
- High - adds articles to Category:High-importance Antarctica articles
- Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Antarctica articles
- Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance Antarctica articles
- Unknown - adds articles to Category:Unknown-importance Antarctica articles
Importance scale
Label | Criteria | Examples |
---|---|---|
Top | Core topics about Antarctica. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main Antarctica article, vital for the understanding of Antarctica or extremely notable to people outside of Antarctica. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members. Biographies should be limited to the top one or two Antarctica in a particular field or persons of the greatest historical importance | |
High | Topics that are very notable within Antarctica, and well-known outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia. | |
Mid | Topics that are reasonably notable on a national level within Antarctica without necessarily being famous or very notable internationally, including smaller towns | |
Low | Topics of mostly local interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial topics or topics that have only a limited connection to Antarctica |
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.
- Extensive edits have been made to Lake Fryxell. If someone could review it, that would be fantastic.DJ Cane (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The Siple Island article says the name is actually Richard Island. Which is correct? Mdw0 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Assessment log
Antarctica articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
- Note: the logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
May 30, 2022
Renamed
- Browning Pass renamed to Browning Pass / Nōti Raureka.
Assessed
- Browning Pass (Antarctica) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
May 29, 2022
Renamed
- Spanish ship San Telmo renamed to San Telmo (Spanish ship).
Assessed
- San Telmo (Spanish ship) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
May 28, 2022
Renamed
- Flora of Fuegia, the Falkland Islands, etc renamed to Botany of Fuegia, the Falklands, Kerguelen's Land, Etc..
- Flora of Lord Auckland and Campbell's Islands renamed to Botany of Lord Auckland's Group and Campbell's Island.
Assessed
- Botany of Fuegia, the Falklands, Kerguelen's Land, Etc. (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Botany of Lord Auckland's Group and Campbell's Island (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
May 27, 2022
Removed
- Draft:Roland Krueger (talk) removed.
May 26, 2022
Reassessed
- Colobanthus kerguelensis (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)