Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

LGBT studies WikiProject
Project navigation links
Main project page	talk
Portal
Watchlist	talk
Members
Coordinator
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ Collaboration	talk
→ Community	talk
→ Deletion
→ Jumpaclass	talk
→ Newsletter
→ Peer review	talk
→ Translation	talk
Useful links
Infoboxes and templates
Guidelines	talk
Notice board	talk
Deletion archive
Project category	talk
LGBT categories
Info resources
· changes

Shortcuts: WP:LGBT/A WP:LGBT/Assessment

One of the main tasks of the LGBT WikiProject is to assess the quality of Wikipedia's LGBT articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to help in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. They also play a role in the WP:1.0 program, which the WikiProject uses to help automate some of the assessing process.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{LGBTProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:LGBT articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. WP:1.0 also produces a statistics page, and a log of articles assessed.

Contents 1 How to assess an article 1.1 Where to find unassessed articles 1.2 Quality scale 1.3 Importance 1.4 Requesting an assessment 2 Statistics 2.1 Current status 2.2 Historical counts 3 Assessment log 4 Worklist

How to assess an article

An article's assessment is generated on its talkpage from the class parameter in {{LGBTProject}}, the WikiProject's banner. To add the banner, add the following to its talkpage:

{{LGBTProject|class=?}}

To add an assessment, simply fill in the class parameter with the appropriate letters. The following values may be used:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class LGBT articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured articles)
• FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class LGBT articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured lists)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class LGBT articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class LGBT articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as good articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class LGBT articles)
• C (adds articles to Category:C-Class LGBT articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class LGBT articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class LGBT articles)
• List (adds articles to Category:List-Class LGBT articles)
• Cat (for categories where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Category-Class LGBT articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article LGBT pages)

Where to find unassessed articles

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed LGBT articles. The criteria for the different classes is below.

Articles which are in LGBT categories (possibly inappropriately - watch out for vandalism!) but which don't yet have an LGBT template are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Cat Search 4 New Pages.

Quality scale

WikiProject LGBT Studies uses the same criteria for grading articles as set out by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you are not sure what class an article falls under, leave a note on the WikiProject's talkpage, and someone will help you out.

WikiProject article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	The article has attained Featured article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes1 or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended). Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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.	Same-sex marriage in Spain (as of January 2007)
FL {{FL-Class}}	The article has attained Featured list status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. 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.			List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A (as of August 2007)
A {{A-Class}}	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. More detailed criteria Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. 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, WikiProject Films).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help.	Jack Harkness (as of March 2008)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has attained Good article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the good article criteria: Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	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.	Harisu (as of July 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria. More detailed criteria Shortcuts: WP:WIABCA WP:BCLASS WP:1.0/B The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. 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. 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. The article is reasonably well written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style and related style guidelines.	Gay icon (as of July 2008)
C {{C-Class}}	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	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 address cleanup issues.	Transwoman (as of July 2008)
Start {{Start-Class}}	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Boystown, Chicago (as of June 2008)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Radio Q (as of December 2007)
List {{List-Class}}	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 LGBT events (as of July 2008)
Category {{Cat-Class}}	Any category falls under this class.	Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area.	Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized.	Category:LGBT

Importance

An importance parameter has not been added to the project tag for talk pages, though this has been proposed. Currently "core" articles are being identified at Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Core topics.

Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article.

If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Add new requests to the bottom of this list.

1. OUTtv: I recently reworked the article, I think it may need reassessing. Thanks! musimax. (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC) Reassessed as C class, left comments on talk for improvment to B.Yobmod (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2. Gold Dust Orphans has been reworked and needs a new assessment. Thank you Friend of theater (talk · contribs) Sorry, but the article still meets the definition of a Stub. PC78 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
3. Norbert Basil MacLean III needs a WikiProject LGBT assessment. Connorkeough (talk · contribs) Already assessed as B-Class. I didn't read the article, but this appears tobe a fair assessment. PC78 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
4. Transfeminism has been reworked and needs new assessment. Please note that I am still in the process of placing all necessary information in the "sources cited" section to allow easy referencing for those interested in confirmation/further reading, though the article itself is ready for review, and sources will be done within 48hours. Currently May 1. Cripdyke (talk · contribs) Rated start, still needs throrough work to make encyclo- and wikipedic.Yobmod (talk) 08:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
5. LGBT rights in Pakistan. The article needs a format WP LGBT assessment. This is a very controversial issue for many in Pakistan and has been handled very carefully as to make the article sound as NPOV as possible. If possible, please leave comments on the talk page regarding all the assessments made. Even the simplest of comments matter to the writers and editors at WikiProject Pakistan. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC) rated C-class. Informative and cited, and good job with the NPOV, but needs a thorough copyedit. Some grammar errors made sentences ambiguous.Yobmod (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
6. Pierre Bergé Updated, would like it to be assessed. Elizabeth BY (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Looks OK. Good amount of info and references. I'm happy to give a C-Class rating. PC78 (talk) 22:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
7. Miriam Margolyes. Was rated 'start' but the article is now fairly developed with references, biography information, extensive filmography and theatre credits. C.harrison1988 (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC). I've rated this article as a C class for the LGBT project, nearly at B. Seems to cover the important points, and it well organised. Needs to fill in some of the gaps in citations. I left comments on talk.Yobmod (talk) 08:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
8. Homosexuality in speculative fiction. (Major expansion of lead, literature, comics and other media sections, list completely referenced, see also/external links tidied, all images free or have fair use updated. Only the modern literature to work on and more on Joanna Russ/Tiptree imo, as needs context. C or B? Danke)

   re-listed in hope of getting a response. Now aiming for GA, but no-one will copy-edit or give review in preparation. Please?Yobmod (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Bah, already made GA while waiting.Yobmod (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

9. Benjamin Kaufman I'm only an IP user and think the original author needs some help with the article. --85.179.54.141 (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Problem seems to be contested notability. Assement here has no bearing - remains stub.Yobmod (talk) 15:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
10. Yaoi A kind of romance fiction for women about fictional "homosexual" men. I think the article's beyond start class now. -Malkinann (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read the article before, and think it is easily B class. Is the "expert needed" tag still needed? If not, i would consider nominating for GA - most reviewers there will be glad to see any article with 100 citations and no OR! Even if not "comprehensive" it certainly seems "broad in coverage".Yobmod (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet - written a year or so ago, finally expanded and footnoted with some notes on the legal issue. Shimgray | talk | 23:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Current status

LGBT articles		Importance
		None	Total
Quality
	FA	35	35
	FL	8	8
	A	8	8
	GA	67	67
	B	869	869
	C	129	129
	Start	3790	3790
	Stub	4538	4538
	List	84	84
	Assessed	9528	9528
	Unassessed	4	4
	Total	9532	9532

Historical counts

Main article: Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment/Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month

2008	January		February		March		April		May		June
FA	35	0.4 %	37	0.4 %	37	0.4 %	37	0.4 %	38	0.4 %	38	0.4 %
A	7	0.1 %	7	0.1 %	7	0.1 %	8	0.1 %	8	0.1 %	8	0.1 %
GA	52	0.6 %	54	0.6 %	55	0.6 %	56	0.6 %	59	0.7 %	57	0.6 %
B	858	10.1 %	852	9.9 %	856	9.9 %	856	9.8 %	861	9.8 %	865	9.8 %
Start	3,297	39.0 %	3,368	39.3 %	3,437	39.6 %	3,453	39.6 %	3,480	39.6 %	3,493	39.6 %
Stub	4,143	49.0 %	4,191	48.9 %	4,226	48.7 %	4,240	48.6 %	4,270	48.6 %	4,273	48.4 %
List	62	0.7 %	63	0.7 %	64	0.7 %	65	0.7 %	66	0.8 %	67	0.8 %
Unassessed	0	0.0 %	4	0.0 %	4	0.0 %	13	0.1 %	4	0.0 %	29	0.3 %
Total	8,454		8,576		8,686		8,728		8,786		8,830
2008	July		August		September		October		[November]		[December]
FA	31	0.3 %	32	0.3 %	32	0.3 %	34	0.3 %	-	- %	-	- %
FL	7	0.0 %	7	0.0 %	7	0.0 %	8	0.0 %	-	- %	-	- %
A	8	0.0 %	7	0.0 %	7	0.0 %	7	0.0 %	-	- %	-	- %
GA	62	0.7 %	61	0.7 %	62	0.7 %	68	0.7 %	-	- %	-	- %
B	866	9.7 %	879	9.7 %	882	9.4 %	867	9.1 %	-	- %	-	- %
C	39	0.4 %	67	0.7 %	110	1.2 %	120	1.3 %	-	- %	-	- %
Start	3,479	39.1 %	3,568	39.3 %	3,702	39.4 %	3,769	39.7 %	-	- %	-	- %
Stub	4,254	47.8 %	4,368	48.1 %	4,516	48.0 %	4,532	47.8 %	-	- %	-	- %
List	72	0.8 %	80	0.9 %	81	0.9 %	82	0.9 %	-	- %	-	- %
Unassessed	78	0.8 %	0	0.0 %	2	0.0 %	4	0.0 %	-	- %	-	- %
Total	8,896		9,069		9,401		9,491		-		-

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.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality log

Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Contact with WP LGBT studies

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/1 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/2 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/3 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/4 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/5 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/6 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/7 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/8 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/9 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/10 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/11 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/12 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/13 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/14 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/15 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/16 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/17 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/18 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/19 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/20 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/21 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/22 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/23 (400 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/LGBT articles by quality/24 (332 articles)

See also: assessed article categories.								Last update: November 13, 2008

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 9 November 2008, at 23:26.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies/Assessment".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Assessment

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.