Welcome to twinme.com on July 10 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Netherlands/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Netherlands
articles
Importance
None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 7 7
Featured list FL 1 1
A-Class article A 1 1
Good article GA 19 19
B 153 153
C 116 116
Start 1334 1334
Stub 6212 6212
List 94 94
Assessed 7937 7937
Unassessed 1 1
Total 7938 7938

Welcome to the assessment department of the Netherlands WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Netherlands 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 Netherlands}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Netherlands articles by quality and Category:Netherlands articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] 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 Netherlands WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article. It is however considered ethical conduct not to assess articles in the writing of which you yourself has been an important editor
Can I rank an article as I like? 
No. Every editor can award stub, start and B class. However, the higher quality labels require more. Good Article and Featured Article status can only be awarded to articles that have gone through the official Wikipedia nomination procedures. A-class assessment are reserved for very good articles, and should have received and fairly addressed extensive peer review (from within or outside the project).
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; if it has indeed been improved; or the rating was unfair, a better quality will be assigned. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
I agreed with the low rating, but I have now improved the article, how can I get my rating up? 
Again, 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.

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Quality assessments

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

{{WikiProject Netherlands| ... | class=??? | ...}}
Featured article FA
A-Class article A
Good article GA
B
C
Start
Stub
???
Needed

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


Template
Disambig
Category
NA

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Netherlands articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Netherlands articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

[edit] Quality scale


[edit] 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.

  • Ive translated the Rasphuis article from the Dutch Wikipedia - can it be reviewed? Dutchdavey (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I've rehauled the GreenLeft article adding references. I was wondering whether it could be reassessed? C mon (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I had a look and you did some good work. It is still B, among others because this is the highest level a single editor within a project can give. If you want it to become Good you have to go the larger community. Arnoutf (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Request an assessment of new article Samuel Story.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done: Start class. Very nice article, add some support material (images etc.) and expand lead and it will make B.Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Request an assessment of new article Vlieter Incident.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done: Start class. Very nice article, add some support material (images etc.) and expand lead and it will make B.Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Batavian Republic has been completely rewritten. Could it please receive an assessment review? (the old rating is stub class).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Done: This is a very strong article. The writing style needs some tightening. Once that is fixed I would give it a go-over and submit for GA soon. Arnoutf (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • North Sea has recently been translated from a Feature Article in German wikipedia, as well as the article was nominated for Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive and received a multitude of improvements. It is currently under peer review. Could it receive an assessment review? SriMesh | talk 04:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It is a reasonably good article but I think it is still at B class (not saying anything about GA or FA classes).
    • Weaknesses:
      • Introduction is too brief (one paragraph). Also in this brief context the reference to a name long ago out of use seems a bit irrelevant. The images in the introduction section are not fully complementary, an infobox is now becoming standard for many articles so perhaps something like that may work here as well
      • The order of the sections should be considered as I think the current structure does not facilitate a very good flow
      • Naming sections seems a bit at an awkward location and the list at the end of this section disrupts the reading flow
      • Geology - Tectonics image is in French not preferred here
      • Island section is only a table. Not a single line of introduction. Are there fifty, are these the top fifty isles. This is unclear.
      • Headings in the history section are awkward (History section if named thus should discuss Geological history and the landbridge in the Ice age) or be renamed. Same for other subheaders. The first section is about acces to Britain (which remained important in WWII), the next are about powers (Roman, Hanseatic, Dutch, English) the later about conflicts (WWI, II). This is inconsistent. A single approach has to be chosen and the section rewritten.
      • Marine traffic and Ships and shipwrecks sections are underdeveloped.
      • Culture and language section. Largely irrelevant, in any case to listy, overly detailed. (also missing image)
      • References several reference (5,6,7) are missing.Arnoutf 17:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


I have totally rewritten the Betuweroute-wiki this month, and then took a first look the talk-page, to learn that it was Start-class.

  • The article was rated in november. After rewriting and extending the piece, I feel that a new rating is overdue.
  • Is the talk-page start-class or the Betuweroute-wiki itself?
  • A map would be nice, but I spend most of my wiki-time on Dutch Wikipedia. Maybe someone is more experienced on the ins and outs of maps and the WikiProject Trains/Maps task force? Other sources are welcome too.
  • What else can I do to improve the article?
  • Oh, and something totally different: Being a Dutchman, I have no native knowledge of English. Although my English is quite passable for my eyes, there may be recurrent quirks or faults. Feel free to inform me about such things!

As I am not often on English Wikipedia these days, consider these ways to contact me:

  • Email to me at bertus@37.com
  • You could write a message on my talk-page [1] on Dutch Wikipedia

Messages are welcome in Dutch, English and German. Please mention your preferred language for an answer.

B222 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I reassessed the article, and think it class should remain at start for now. By request an assessment report is given below; I have listed main issues, as I think the article is not at the status we can truly bother about details.
  • Introduction. Please conform to WP:LEAD; make sure it comprehensively covers the whole of the article. Also the second line "Several parts of this article are based on a German weblog" should not be in the Lead section. An image o map, preferably inside an infobox placed in the top-right corner would benefit the intro.
  • History. Please make the timeline fully chronological. Is this really all there is?
  • Controversy. The style is very listy and the flow of reading could benefit from more prose like storytelling. Also, refer to the relevance of these controversies, what influence did it have on planning, cost and specifications.
  • Specification. This is a bulleted list. Some introductory lines to contextualise the specification issues is needed.
  • Infrastructure. Same as above, provide some more context and improve flow of reading
  • Route. This needs a map, also very listy, is there no alternative for that long list? The reference to the previous route needs to be explained furhter
  • I would combinen Specification, Infrastructure and Route in one section (as subsections) called e.g. Design (or planning or whatever); splitting them apart seems to intoduce redundancies
  • Important information I am missing:
    • Why/How was this route designed. Where did the money come from, Who owns it, Who pais for it, Who wants it.
    • More elaboration on amount of traffic; and operators, operational costs, operational turnover, etc.
Taken together I think this article needs a considerable amount of work before it can be awarded B-class. I hope this helps. (copy on article talk) Arnoutf (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Recently have done considerable work on New Netherland, including much new info, creating sections, adding references, lots of linking, etc. Feedback would be greatly appreciatedDjflem (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment log

Netherlands articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

[edit] July 8, 2009

[edit] July 3, 2009

[edit] June 30, 2009

[edit] June 25, 2009

[edit] June 19, 2009

[edit] June 16, 2009

[edit] June 10, 2009

[edit] June 5, 2009

[edit] May 23, 2009

[edit] May 17, 2009

[edit] May 14, 2009

[edit] May 7, 2009

[edit] May 3, 2009

Log truncated as it is too huge!

Personal tools

Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs