Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Overview

[edit]

Introduction

[edit]

The assessment system used by the Military history WikiProject to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.

Prose article List article
Stub The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list, so this assessment level is shared between the two scales.
Start List A stub that undergoes some development will progress to the next stage of article evolution. An article at this stage provides some meaningful content, but is typically incomplete and lacks adequate references, structure, and supporting materials. At this stage, it becomes possible to distinguish between prose articles and lists; depending on its form, an article at this level will be assessed as a Start-Class prose article or a List-Class list.
C CL As the article continues to develop, it will reach the C-Class level. At this stage, the article is reasonably structured and contains substantial content and supporting materials, but may still be incomplete or poorly referenced, but not both. As articles progress to this stage, the assessment process begins to take on a more structured form, and specific criteria are introduced against which articles are rated.
B BL An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it might not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. Articles at this stage commonly undergo peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing a formal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors.
GA After reaching the B-Class level, an article may be submitted for assessment as a good article. Good articles must meet a set of criteria similar to those required for the B-Class assessment level, and must additionally undergo the formal good article review process. This assessment level is available only for prose articles; no comparable level exists for lists.
A AL A good or B-Class article that has undergone additional improvement may be considered for the A-Class assessment level. An A-Class article presents a complete and thorough encyclopedic treatment of a subject, such as might be written by an expert in the field; the only deficiencies permissible at this level are minor issues of style or language. To receive an A-Class rating, a candidate article must undergo the formal military history A-Class review process. The A-Class rating is the highest assessment level that may be assigned by an individual WikiProject; higher assessment levels are granted only by Wikipedia-wide independent assessment processes.
FA FL The featured article and featured list ratings represent the pinnacle of article evolution and the best that Wikipedia has to offer; an article at this level is professional, outstanding, and represents a definitive source for encyclopedic information. Featured status is assigned only through a thorough independent review process; this process can be grueling for the unprepared, and editors are highly advised to submit articles for A-Class review prior to nominating them for featured status.

Criteria

[edit]

The following tables summarize the criteria used to assess articles at each level of the quality assessment scale. In addition to the criteria, the tables list the assessment process used at each level and provide an example of an article previously assessed at that level.

Assessment criteria for prose articles
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
FA The article meets all the featured article criteria. Featured article candidacy USS Chesapeake (as of October 2021)
A The article meets all of the A-Class criteria. A-Class review Spendius (as of October 2021)
GA The article meets all of the good article criteria. Good article review Punic Wars (as of October 2021)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. Individual review American Civil War (as of January 2024)
C The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Individual review Yellow Turban Rebellion (as of October 2021)
Start The article meets the Start-Class criteria. Individual review Battle of Monnaie (as of October 2021)
Stub The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Individual review Geng Yan (as of October 2021)
Assessment criteria for lists
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
FL The list meets all the featured list criteria. Featured list candidacy List of protected cruisers of France (as of October 2021)
AL The list meets all of the A-Class criteria. A-Class review List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (as of October 2021)
BL The list meets all of the B-Class criteria. Individual review List of British colours lost in battle (as of October 2021)
CL The list meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Individual review List of participants in the Nine Years' War (as of October 2021)
List The list meets the List-Class criteria. Individual review Atlanta campaign Confederate order of battle, second phase (as of October 2021)
Stub The list meets none of the List-Class criteria. Individual review List of supercavitating torpedoes (as of October 2021)

Processes

[edit]

This section describes the different processes used to assess the quality of military history articles.

Individual review

[edit]

The individual review process is used for all assessment activities up to and including the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.

Article authors are free to assess their own articles under this process. However, by convention, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at the assessment request page.

Peer review

[edit]

The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.

By convention, military history articles are typically listed in the history section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.

Good article review

[edit]

The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria.

Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.

A-Class article/list review

[edit]

The military history A-Class review process is the most thorough and demanding assessment of article quality done by the Military history WikiProject. An article that undergoes this process must be reviewed by at least three independent examiners, each of whom must agree that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria.

Full instructions for requesting an A-Class review are provided on the A-Class review page.

[edit]

The featured article candidacy and featured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets the featured article or list criteria.

Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPMILHIST|class=}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:

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

The following classes may be used for non-article pages; many are automatically generated by the template when it is placed on a page of the corresponding type:

FAQ

[edit]
See also the general assessment FAQ and the project's B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ and A-Class review & criteria 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 {{WPMILHIST}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WPMILHIST}} template on an article, but it 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 Military history 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.
5. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to?
For the most part, yes—in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be made here), and A-Class promotion requires the consensus of multiple independent reviewers. However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.
6. 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; this is documented in the assessment scale.
7. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
8. 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.
9. Where can I get more comments about an article?
The peer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
10. 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; this is documented in the assessment scale.
11. 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!
12. 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, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact the project coordinators directly.

Requests

[edit]

Requests for A-Class review

[edit]

USS Texas (BB-35)John S. McCain Sr.Project PlutoSMS BerlinAN/APS-20USS Varuna (1861)Battle of MeligalasBattle of Arkansas Post (1863)


Requests for assessment

[edit]
Please note that this section is transcluded from a separate requests page, which you may wish to add to your watchlist.

Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class. If you have made significant improvements to an article against one or more of B-class criteria and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below, specifying which criteria you have worked on. If you feel unable to assess against one or more of the B-class criteria, please say so when posting. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. Please consider entering articles you have improved in the military history article writing contest.

Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for December and check a few of ≈ B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria. Please also delete any that you have checked. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment, whose articles often overlap with military history topics.


ADD NEW REQUESTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION AND BEFORE THE LINE FOR THE BACKLOG CHECK REQUEST
Please remember to sign your requests.

  • Siege of Fort St. Philip (1815) This has been expanded, with more sources. Last assessed in 2007. Thanks. Keith H99 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bot got there first and assessed B class. I agree. Comprehensive. As info, if you are not familiar with requesting a good article class review and you want to do so, the instructions are here: Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for looking at this. What I do not understand is that as of 20:53, 24 October 2009, all elements except one were B class. The bot seems to have upheld the original rating, and it seems inconsistent that it has a legacy rating of C, whereas I would have thought the referencing is B standard all these years later. Is there a reason why the legacy rating does not match the bot rating, of C and B respectively? Can you please explain why there is this clash? Thanks for the help provided. Keith H99 (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't think there is enough source material out there, to warrant spending the time on the article to raise it to a Good Article class, but think that what is currently there is worthy of a B class. Keith H99 (talk) 22:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Keith H99: I should have seen the inconsistency. I have changed b1 to yes so there is no inconsistency in the assessment or on the page. I have seen such inconsistencies a few times when the two bots (cewbot and milhistbot) give inconsistent ratings. Milhistbot is usually correct; sometimes a manual adjustment is necessary, however. I also have seen milhistbot not recognize that b1 had been satisfied because of the placement of the citation at the beginning of a quote or table but that does not appear to have been the situation here. Milhistbot originally gave the article a B rating but with a b1=no. This ultimately ended up as a C, possibly when cewbot rated it as B but noticed the b1=no. I am far from an expert on bots so my view may not be what happened. The bottom line is that there was an error as to b1 even though the overall assessment was accurate and I have made them consistent. Sorry I can't be more definitive. Great article in any event. Donner60 (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for this. It is the most recent human assessment vs bot assessment clash that I have encountered. I rewrote the article 3 years ago. It was an awful nationalistic POV, with dollops of fantasy and very few sources. Happy New Year! Keith H99 (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't the bots' fault. Back in 2009 I gave it a b1=no (correct at the time) but class=B (correct at the time), which was later rendered as C class when that was introduced the following year. The cewbot came along in 2024 to add the banner shell and adopted the majority class rating of B (our template is the only one). Then it noted the inconsistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clearing this up. I am glad I mentioned that I was not an expert on the bot and that was my surmise. Donner60 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davis Tillson - another American Civil War general, just created, could use a check against B-class criteria. Thanks in advance ...GELongstreet (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bot assessed C class. Bot determined that coverage and accuracy criteria not met. I suggest adding a few sentences to the lead and separating the biography section into Early life, American Civil War and Later life sections, though they will be brief. APPLETONS’ CYCLOPAEDIA OF AMERICAN BIOGRAPHY VOL. VI. SUNDERLAND—ZU RITA has an entry for him. This appears to have some additional information. Since it was published in 1888, he was still alive. I earlier downloaded information from this book since it is available online. I was gathering information on the few generals who still needed biographies but did not find time to proceed. I don't remember a reason but I didn't note the online info for citation so I cannot readily add it here. I think it can be easily found, however. Donner60 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Bot has instructions not to issue a B to an article with a one-sentence lead. Also, i Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Ormond Butler new article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please fix “He graduated from the United States Military Academy Field ArtilleryWest Point, New York, in April 1917 and was commissioned in the Infantry Branch.” in the lead. It is confusing as heck and can be reworded better. That’s what I’ve seen so far, just skimming, if I see anything else, I’ll let you know. I’m kind of in a time constraint right now so I’m doing this really quickly
    Reader of Information (talk) 04:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Change: William Ormond "Bruce" Butler was born in Marshall, Virginia, on 23 September 1895, the son of Robert Ormond Butler, an engineer, and Mary McGeorge née Hume. —> William Ormond "Bruce" Butler was born in Marshall, Virginia, on 23 September 1895, to Robert Ormond Butler, an engineer, and Mary McGeorge (née Hume).
    2. “He was ranked 33rd in the class of April 1917 (two ahead of classmate J. Lawton Collins)” Relevance of the bolded text? If this isn’t relevant to anything to the article then I’d recommend removal.
    3. “Between the wars” title should be changed to “Interlude between World Wars”, seems more accurate and be more professional. Although it could be better, this is the best thing I can come up with at the moment. Reader of Information (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hawkeye7: Bot assessed as B class. I agree. Comments by a new user, not an experienced one. Needs much more experience and more familiarity with military history before venturing into assessment of military history aritcles. Not knowing who J. Lawton Collins and why this might be important is one flaw. Other comments are nitpicking that could be addressed by article edits if useful, and reverted if not. Not part of the assessment process. Donner60 (talk) 19:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected the error in the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also check the military history assessment backlog for articles needing assessment.

Assessment backlogs

[edit]

Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:

Statistics

[edit]
  • Quality operations: A bot-generated daily log which lists articles Reassessed, Assessed and Removed.
  • Popular pages: List of top articles with the most frequent views, updated monthly.

Task forces (general topics)

[edit]

Task forces (national and regional)

[edit]

Task forces (periods and conflicts)

[edit]

Special projects

[edit]
Operation Majestic Titan assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) assessment statistics

logcategory