Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Internet! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Internet 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 Internet}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Internet articles by quality and Category:Internet 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 Internet 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 assessment[edit]
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Internet}} project banner on its talk page:
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 Internet articles) |  FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Internet articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Internet articles) |  GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Internet articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Internet articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Internet articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Internet articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Internet articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Internet articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
Quality scale[edit]
The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.
Importance assessment[edit]
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Internet}} project banner on its talk page:
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):
| Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Internet articles) | Top | |
| High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Internet articles) | High | |
| Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Internet articles) | Mid | |
| Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Internet articles) | Low | |
| NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Internet articles) | NA | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Internet articles) | ??? |
Importance scale[edit]
The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of the Internet.
Note that general notability need not believe from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.
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. Please note that an importance rating may not be given in some cases if the reviewer is unfamiliar with the subject.
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!
Submit new requests here:
- Fastly - new article. 2A02:C7F:963F:BA00:D1AA:6B7B:FE31:F56 (talk) 13:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC).
- Heartbleed - Requesting importance reassessment. Originally assessed Top-importance in 2014 at height of coverage. WP:COMP have it rated Mid-importance (Top-importance for subproject WP:CSEC). FeRDNYC (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- UK Web Archive Requesting a reassessment for this article, as it was recently moved and updated. Thanks :) Timeousbeastie (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
- Amazon Silk Hasn't been assessed for either importance or quality and I think it should be assessed considering it's been assessed by WikiProject Computing. It also needs to be improved but no one has said anything in the talk page about what needs to be fixed (besides me) so I feel like getting an assessment will allow those who wish to make it better to be able to do so by being able to see what needs to be improved. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- History of the World Wide Web Sean Brunnock (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC). Recent extensive rewrite.
- .nrw (domain) Arotparaarms (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC). it took me A long time to re-write, I think it's a Start, am I wrong?
Log[edit]
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; due to its size (ca 100 kB), it cannot be transcluded directly.
- ^ For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. However, where quite a number of pictures exist, for instance, the moon landing, FPC attempts to select the best of the ones produced.
- ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
- ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
