Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire/Assessment

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
New Hampshire articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 2 3 4 9
FL 1 2 1 4
GA 5 11 16
B 7 15 15 15 52
C 1 7 32 69 109
Start 6 46 382 524 1 46 1,005
Stub 2 3 78 1,570 1 370 2,024
List 2 6 20 53 81
Category 2 1,285 1,287
Disambig 1 1
File 9 9
Portal 122 122
Project 41 41
Redirect 162 162
Template 62 62
Assessed 18 80 537 2,249 1,684 416 4,984
Unassessed 69 17 86
Total 18 80 537 2,249 1,753 433 5,070

Welcome to the assessment department of the

WP:1.0
program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject United States}} project banner; when the NH parameter to this template is also set to yes, setting the other parameters will cause the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:New Hampshire articles by quality.

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 United States}} to the talk page with the NH parameter set to yes.
3. Someone set the NH parameter to yes in a {{WikiProject United States}} template on an article's talk page, but the article 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 the New Hampshire WikiProject 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. At least the following Wikipedians already semi-regularly assess articles for the New Hampshire WikiProject:
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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
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. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
8. 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!
9. 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, leave a message on the
talk page
.
10. What happened to the old {{
Project New Hampshire
}} template?
It got deprecated and subsumed into the one we now mention throughout this page. The old syntax will still work for now, but it will also place the page into the Category:United States articles with deprecated tags hidden category

Assessment instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{

project banner instructions
for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject United States|class=???|importance=???|NH=yes|NH-importance=???}}

Article quality

should only be used for articles that are currently listed as
featured articles
should only be used for articles that have A-Class status
should only be used for articles that are currently listed as
good articles

List quality

should only be used for lists that are currently listed as
featured lists

Other pseudo-quality options

Article Priority

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed New Hampshire articles.

Legend

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.[under discussion] Dartmouth College
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging
    lead
    that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
    • (b) statements are
      four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations
      .
    • (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for
      content-forking guideline
      , does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
    • (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting,
      colour
      ; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
    • (b) Media files. It has
      are labeled accordingly
      .
    • (c) Accessibility. It
      alternative (alt) text
      .
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing
    edit wars
    and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. List of counties in New Hampshire
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. N/A
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the
      list incorporation
      .
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
      the layout style guideline
      ;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
    audio
    :
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are
      relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
      .
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Appalachian Trail
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is
    suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web
    }} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an
    A-Class article
    , although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an
    technical terms should be explained or avoided
    where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. New Hampshire
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Government of New Hampshire
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Old Man of the Mountain
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. New Hampshire Senate
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of New Hampshire state symbols
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:New Hampshire
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. New Hampshire (disambiguation)
File Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:New Hampshire map.png
Portal Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. Portal:New Hampshire
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles.
Kancamagus Highway
Template Any
template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes
.		 Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Template:New Hampshire

Priority scale

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). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are only of interest primarily to a certain demographic.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a wider audience—but which are of high notability for this project—should still be highly rated.

Also note that now that WikiProject New Hampshire is a sub-project of WikiProject United States, we have separate importance fields for the two. Thus, an article may have different values in its importance and NH-importance fields in its {{WikiProject United States}} template, if it is more important for New Hampshire than it is for the rest of the United States, or vice versa.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{
Top-Class
}} 		This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{
High-Class
}} 		This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{
Mid-Class
}} 		This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{
Low-Class
}} 		This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

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 in the "Pending" subsection below. Once you have assessed an article from the list of pending requests, please move it to the list of fulfilled requests. If you would like an article from the "Fulfilled" subsection to be re-assessed, feel free to move it back to the "Pending" subsection with a comment explaining what you think has changed since the previous request.

Fulfilled requests

  1. Tuckerman Ravine
  2. Hills Memorial Library Seeking B-class assessment. I think it may qualify; it's short but relatively comprehensive for what it is. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Max I. Silber RobHoitt 03:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Amanda Merrill new article. --Epeefleche (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Geoffrey Holt (philanthropist) Thanks - Yamfri /ˈjæm.friː/ (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pending requests

  1. Add new requests here

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.


April 27, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

April 26, 2024

Assessed

April 25, 2024

Assessed

April 24, 2024

Assessed

April 23, 2024

Assessed

April 22, 2024

Assessed

April 21, 2024

Reassessed

Assessed

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Hampshire/Assessment&oldid=1188653163"