Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a468259d9f1e5cd4

Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  WikiProject Higher education
This box:
Main pages
Main project talk
Participants
  Participants category talk
Project category talk
Infobox talk
Manual of style
Article guideline talk
Templates
  Higher education stubs talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration of the Month (inactive) talk
Outreach (inactive) talk
Articles
List of articles talk
Accomplishments
Articles for Deletion
  Archive
Clean-up List
Popular pages
Task Forces
Student Affairs talk
Statistics
Higher education pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 47
FL 131
FM 27
A 2
GA 292
B 1,841
C 6,572
Start 20,030
Stub 14,699
List 2,611
Category 35,586
Disambig 150
File 8,929
Project 54
Template 2,143
NA 3,299
Assessed 96,413
Total 96,413
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 220,741 Ω = 5.08
Things To Do
  1. Work on articles that need cleanup.
  2. Create a page for every university and college and add {{infobox University}} for it. See the missing list for those institutions still awaiting articles.
  3. Place {{WikiProject Higher education}} on every related talk page.
  4. Combat boosterism wherever it appears
  5. Ensure all articles, including Featured articles, are consistent with the article guidelines.


Shortcuts

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Higher education! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Universities and College 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 Higher education}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Higher education articles by quality, Category:Higher education articles needing attention, and Category:Higher education collaborations. The quality ratings serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
How can I get my article rated?
As a member of the WikiProject Higher education, you can do it yourself. If you're unsure, list it in the requesting an assessment section below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Higher education is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
Relist it as a request or contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.
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, or to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education directly.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and parameters in the {{WikiProject Higher education}} project banner on its talk page. You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below.

This is the rating syntax (ratings and dates are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{WikiProject Higher education}}
  • Displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality parameter.
{{WikiProject Higher education|class=FA}}
  • All assessed articles should have quality filled in. Leaving the other parameters off does not hurt anything.
{{WikiProject Higher education|class=Start|attention=yes}}
  • If an article needs immediate attention, add the attention tag and please leave talk notes as to why. The only valid parameter for this field is "yes". If it does not need attention, leave the parameter off.
{{WikiProject Higher education|class=B|attention=yes|past-selected=[[July]] [[2006]]|collaboration-past=[[April]] [[2006]]}}
  • If an article has been the SATM or COTM, these tags get added in this format.

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Higher education}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class Higher education articles category)  FA
FL (for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class Higher education articles category)  FL
A (for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class Higher education articles category)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class Higher education articles category)  GA
B (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class Higher education articles category) B
C (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class Higher education articles category) C
Start (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class Higher education articles category) Start
Stub (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class Higher education articles category) Stub
List (for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class Higher education articles category) List
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class Higher education pages category) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed Higher education articles category) ???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

FM (for featured media only; adds them to the FM-Class Higher education pages category)  FM
Category (for categories; adds them to the Category-Class Higher education pages category) Category
Draft (for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class Higher education pages category) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds them to the File-Class Higher education pages category) File
Project (for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class Higher education pages category) Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class Higher education pages category) Template

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds them to the Disambig-Class Higher education pages category) Disambig

The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Quality scale

[edit]

All examples below are as of July 2021. Please note that a B-Class article must include at least one reference.

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
ClassCriteriaReader's experienceEditing suggestionsExample
 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. United States Military Academy
 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.
  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.
  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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of University of Waterloo people
 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. None
 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 Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, list incorporation, and table accessibility.
  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 images, video, or 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, have suitable captions, and have alt text.
 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. Columbia University
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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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 appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience as possible in mind. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and 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. University of California, Berkeley
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. National Collegiate Athletic Association
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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. Kyoto University
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. Fiji National University
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 universities and colleges in Denmark
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. Concordia University (disambiguation)
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:Infobox University

Assessment log

[edit]





















Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Higher_education/Assessment&oldid=1034321869"