Wikipedia:WikiProject Energy/Assessment
Energy articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 1 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 12 | |
FL | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
A | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 3 | 4 | 26 | 49 | 2 | 84 | |
B | 18 | 90 | 145 | 238 | 56 | 547 | |
C | 37 | 206 | 421 | 1,198 | 357 | 2,219 | |
Start | 178 | 752 | 5,362 | 1,427 | 7,719 | ||
Stub | 16 | 154 | 4,048 | 1,632 | 5,850 | ||
List | 37 | 70 | 322 | 2 | 120 | 551 | |
Category | 6,137 | 6,137 | |||||
Disambig | 3 | 30 | 33 | ||||
File | 70 | 70 | |||||
Portal | 153 | 153 | |||||
Project | 14 | 14 | |||||
Template | 3 | 9 | 246 | 258 | |||
NA | 2 | 36 | 44 | 341 | 495 | 918 | |
Other | 1 | 79 | 80 | ||||
Assessed | 61 | 568 | 1,623 | 11,576 | 7,226 | 3,595 | 24,649 |
Unassessed | 1 | 8 | 1 | 730 | 740 | ||
Total | 61 | 568 | 1,624 | 11,584 | 7,227 | 4,325 | 25,389 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 84,381 | Ω = 5.14 |
Welcome to the assessment department of the Energy WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Energy or the people of Energy. 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 Energy}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Energy articles by quality, 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 Energy WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- 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
An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Energy}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Energy
|class=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class energy articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class energy articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class energy articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class energy articles)
- C (adds articles to Category:C-Class energy articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class energy articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class energy articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article energy pages)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed energy articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Quality scale
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.
|
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] | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
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:
|
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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
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. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) |
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:
|
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. | Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019) |
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
|
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. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
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. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
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:
|
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. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
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. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
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 literary movements |
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.
- China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor-Major edits made , requesting reassessment. Thank you. TechnicolourKaleidoscope (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Champion Oil Field - Request Assessment. Thank you.
- Polymer-based battery - Substantially transformed article from a little blurb to a significant overview of this emerging class of batteries. Ala127
- Worldwide energy supply - Would like to know what to do to improve further. Rwbest (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
- Renewable Energy in Costa Rica - the article was substantially improved, including regulatory framework of the government of Costa Rica and references related to the state of the art in solar, geothermal and hydroelectricity projects in the country. I would like some feedback! Ceab.ico
- Energy policy of the European Union - the article is now hopelessly outdated, no longer deserves a B rating Gor
- Energy Technology Perspectives - Major rewrite, omited external source links, changed text to not appear as an advertisement.
- Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant - Major rewrite with new sources. Would like to know what to do to improve further. Apercu
- SG Biofuels - Improved from stub
- 2009 Russia–Ukraine gas dispute - Substantially reworked. Further suggestions and constructive criticism welcome.LokiiT (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
- Statoil Fuel & Retail - Article about a new company (spin-off from existing Fortune 50 company). Bifrost2 (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
- Dynamic tidal power - Page is not a stub anymore. Should be class B by now. Also, considering heavy emphasis by The Netherlands, European Commission and Chinese government, importance level should be raised to High or even Top. Will make further additions in coming weeks, to reflect recent developments. Keen to have an outside opinion. UNguyinChina
- Nationalization of oil supplies - Significantly improved and expanded by a policy class project last month. Is it B yet? 24.216.225.123 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Aera Energy LLC - I've improved the citations. --Cmntgmry (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- Dark Energy - Doesnt have an assesment please assess and give further suggestions to improve the article Naveed (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Dilbit - Another person removed the stub category, which is probably correct given recent changes. As I made a number of the substantive and format changes, I probably should not perform the re-assessment. --Rpclod (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Green Museum - A class worked on this article this semester, adding significant content. Review welcome! Sleuthwood (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant - Significant additions have been made to this article, would love comments on how to improve the article more.Castroby (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- Solar cell efficiency - Made significant changes to article. Would like some feedback.Rob Hurt (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
- Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power - Article needs an initial assessment to determine what needs to be done to improve it.Graham1973 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thunder Bay Generating Station - Improved from stub, references added
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.
March 28, 2024
Reassessed
- Energy in Europe (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- Nottingham Corporation Electricity Department (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Oil reserves in Spain (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
March 27, 2024
Renamed
- Mustapha Abdullahi renamed to Mustapha Abdullahi.
Assessed
- Category:OKC Energy FC (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Category:Proposed energy infrastructure in the Republic of Ireland (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
March 26, 2024
Renamed
- Thermal power stations in Russia and Soviet Union renamed to Thermal power stations in Russia and the Soviet Union.
Reassessed
- Robert Van Osdell West Jr. (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- Royal Commission on Fuel and Engines (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Thermal power stations in Russia and the Soviet Union (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Wushi oil field (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
March 25, 2024
Reassessed
- Gaza electricity crisis (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Korea Southern Power (talk) reassessed. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- Missing Iranian oil rig (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Northeast blackout of 1965 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Ruya Bayegan (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
March 24, 2024
Renamed
- Asian Renewable Energy Hub renamed to Australian Renewable Energy Hub.
- Martha Crawford Heitzmann renamed to Martha Crawford.
Reassessed
- Low-carbon economy (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Molten-salt reactor (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- Australian Renewable Energy Hub (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Biomass Energy and Alcohol Fuels Act (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:BlocPower (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Energy Efficiency Best Practice programme (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Martha Crawford (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Removed
- Draft:H2Oil Group (talk) removed.
March 23, 2024
Renamed
- Molten salt reactor renamed to Molten-salt reactor.
Assessed
- Molten-salt reactor (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as High-Class. (rev · t)
- San Buenaventura Power Plant (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- White House Office on Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
March 22, 2024
Reassessed
- Operation Pluto (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from GA-Class to A-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- Draft:Genevos (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:The Coming War on China (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Worklist
- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.