Welcome to the assessment department of the Antarctica WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Antarctica 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 Antarctica}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Antarctica articles by quality and Category:Antarctica articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
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 Antarctica 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
Quality assessments
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Antarctica}} 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 Antarctica articles) |  FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Antarctica articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Antarctica articles) |  GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Antarctica articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Antarctica articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Antarctica articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Antarctica articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Antarctica articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Antarctica articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.
Quality scale
Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Antarctica}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Antarctica| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance Antarctica articles
- High - adds articles to Category:High-importance Antarctica articles
- Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Antarctica articles
- Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance Antarctica articles
- Unknown - adds articles to Category:Unknown-importance Antarctica articles
Importance scale
| Label | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Top | Core topics about Antarctica. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main Antarctica article, vital for the understanding of Antarctica or extremely notable to people outside of Antarctica. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members. Biographies should be limited to the top one or two Antarctica in a particular field or persons of the greatest historical importance | |
| High | Topics that are very notable within Antarctica, and well-known outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia. | |
| Mid | Topics that are reasonably notable on a national level within Antarctica without necessarily being famous or very notable internationally, including smaller towns | |
| Low | Topics of mostly local interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial topics or topics that have only a limited connection to Antarctica |
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.
- Extensive edits have been made to Lake Fryxell. If someone could review it, that would be fantastic.DJ Cane (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The Siple Island article says the name is actually Richard Island. Which is correct? Mdw0 (talk) 12:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Assessment log
| Antarctica articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
- Note: the logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
February 25, 2025
Renamed
- Draft:Friesea grisea renamed to Friesea grisea.
February 24, 2025
Reassessed
- Miller Range (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
February 23, 2025
Reassessed
- Barton Mountains (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
- Clarence Hare (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
- Draft:Friesea grisea (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
February 22, 2025
Reassessed
- Stange Sound (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
February 21, 2025
Reassessed
- McMurdo Station transportation (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
February 20, 2025
Renamed
- Draft:Gomphiocephalus renamed to Gomphiocephalus.
Assessed
- Chair Peak (Washington) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- List of recipients of the Polar Medal (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as List-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Polar Medal (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
Removed
- Chair Peak (talk) removed.