View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Assessment

 Main Participants Templates Categories Assessment Requested articles Archives 
Mythology articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 4 4 12 23
FL 1 1 2
GA 8 18 51 73 1 151
B 49 95 166 297 119 726
C 52 131 347 730 170 1,430
Start 17 133 525 2,118 367 3,160
Stub 1 28 202 2,736 436 3,403
List 2 29 59 514 7 160 771
Category 2,308 2,308
Disambig 77 77
File 43 43
Portal 2 2
Project 9 9
Template 125 125
NA 1 13 48 261 765 1,088
Other 23 23
Assessed 134 451 1,402 6,742 3,359 1,253 13,341
Unassessed 1 1 2 4
Total 134 451 1,403 6,743 3,359 1,255 13,345
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 44,461 Ω = 4.99

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

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
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 Mythology WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
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. 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

[edit]

Quality assessments

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Mythology}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Mythology articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Mythology articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Mythology articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Mythology articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Mythology articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Mythology articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Mythology articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Mythology articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Mythology articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Mythology pages) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Mythology pages) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Mythology pages) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Mythology pages) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Mythology pages) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Mythology pages) Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Mythology pages) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Mythology pages) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Mythology articles) ???

After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.

Quality scale

[edit]
WikiProject content 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. 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:
  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 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:
  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, and 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 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, 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. 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
  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 in mind as possible. 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. 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:
  • 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. 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

Importance assessment

[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WP Mythology}} banner on its talk page:

{{WP Mythology| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Importance scale

[edit]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about mythology. A reader who is not involved in the field of mythology will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. Mythology
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding mythology.
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of mythology. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand religion, such as specific aspects of mythology. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in mythology will be rated in this level.
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of mythology. Few readers outside the mythology field may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of mythology, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of mythology.

Given the number and variety of articles with which this project shall be dealing, I believe that we should devote a good deal of attention in the short run to determining which of the articles we consider to be of greatest importance to the project. We now have a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mythology/Assessment/Top-importance articles where we can discuss which articles should receive top-importance ranking. Any and all input is more than welcome.

Requesting an assessment

[edit]

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.

Joseph Campbell

[edit]

The main Joseph Campbell article has undergone quite a lot of clean-up, reformatting and reorganization over the last year. Is there a team member who would be willing to reassess it? -- David Kudler (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triple Goddess

[edit]

Currently listed as "B", but all "citation needed" tags have now been fulfilled, some authorial-voice opinionating neutralized, and the "Origins" section now details sources before Robert Graves. It would be nice to get a status check at this milepost, to gauge the need for further editing. Thanks! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 01:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu mythology articles

[edit]

I recently tagged FA and GA Hindu mythology articles with this project tag. They however need assessment for importance. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC) They are FA Ganesha and Vithoba and others listed at [1]--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legendary Early Briton Monarchy (Moved question)

[edit]

I'm new at WP and took a stab at updates to Sisillius II and his mother Queen Marcia. Before I go any further with additional pages it would be helpful to know if the pages fit style guidelines. (I found "good pages" on the main article, but there's much less information about these folks so I'm not quite sure if what I did was fitting or not.) What do you think? Thanks! --CaroleHenson (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also placed the question at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WikiProject_Mythology, not being sure which was the best place.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see update from one person and my follow-up question on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WikiProject_Mythology --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved this question to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology which appears to have recent responses to questions.

Raven Tales

[edit]

As a team member of the Article for Improvement wikiproject I've spent the past couple days significantly expanding upon the article Raven Tales which accounts the written and oral stories of Raven amongst the native tribes of the pacific northwest. Raven seems to have the highest importance to a large region of people and when I first started I don't think the article was much more than a small stub. At this point I believe that the article may well qualify as a B class article, potentially even a good article. I would appreciate your review. Thanks. David Condrey (talk) 09:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Polyphonte

[edit]

I know Polyphonte is a slightly arcane figure but I've done quite a lot of work on the article and would be very grateful if someone could cast another pair of eyes over it. I'm rather new so I may well have overlooked something. Nyctimene (talk) 21:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Acantha

[edit]

As part of an ongoing project to review the entire Metamorphoses in Greek mythology category I recently made some major changes to the Acantha page. I would really appreciate it if someone would re-evaluate the article. Changes include major rewrites, extensive referencing, the addition of a relevant see also section and adding the Greek Deity series banner to the side of the article. It now contains more detail than any commercial encyclopedia and hence, in this editors admittedly biased view, deserves more than the designation stub class. Nyctimene (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalion

[edit]

Next on the project list is Daedalion. Completely rewritten with a good deal more content. References added and proper incline citations provided. A see also section has been added detailing other instances in which mortals have been transformed into birds. Greek and Roman mythology bars placed at the bottom of the page. The page now contains a much fuller account of the story and hence an assessment would be appreciated. Nyctimene (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damarchus

[edit]

You get the gist by now. Major update of the Damarchus article with loads of additional sources. Hopefully it now provides encyclopedic coverage of the topic. Nyctimene (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo and Daphne

[edit]

I have done a bit of an overhaul on the Apollo and Daphne page, removing a lot of "book report" styling and opinions and trying to make it more about the story than our interpretation of it's meaning. It could still use some work, which I intend to do, but I think it's well past stub-class.--Lindsey40186 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perperuna and Dodola

[edit]

I have majorly rewrote and renamed the title of the article, for details see Talk:Perperuna and Dodola#New revision. It is not anymore a start-class, also considering the amount of literature and focus, doubt it is of low-importance. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment log

[edit]
Mythology 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.


December 21, 2024

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

December 20, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

December 19, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

December 18, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

December 17, 2024

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

December 15, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]