Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review
ContestAwardsMembers

The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.

OverviewEdit

IntroductionEdit

The assessment system used by the Military history WikiProject to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.

Prose article List article
Stub The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list, so this assessment level is shared between the two scales.
Arrow southwest.svg
Arrow southeast.svg
Start List A stub that undergoes some development will progress to the next stage of article evolution. An article at this stage provides some meaningful content, but is typically incomplete and lacks adequate references, structure, and supporting materials. At this stage, it becomes possible to distinguish between prose articles and lists; depending on its form, an article at this level will be assessed as a Start-Class prose article or a List-Class list.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
C CL As the article continues to develop, it will reach the C-Class level. At this stage, the article is reasonably structured and contains substantial content and supporting materials, but may still be incomplete or poorly referenced, but not both. As articles progress to this stage, the assessment process begins to take on a more structured form, and specific criteria are introduced against which articles are rated.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
B BL An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it might not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. Articles at this stage commonly undergo peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing a formal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
GA After reaching the B-Class level, an article may be submitted for assessment as a good article. Good articles must meet a set of criteria similar to those required for the B-Class assessment level, and must additionally undergo the formal good article review process. This assessment level is available only for prose articles; no comparable level exists for lists.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
A-Class article A A-Class list AL A good or B-Class article that has undergone additional improvement may be considered for the A-Class assessment level. An A-Class article presents a complete and thorough encyclopedic treatment of a subject, such as might be written by an expert in the field; the only deficiencies permissible at this level are minor issues of style or language. To receive an A-Class rating, a candidate article must undergo the formal military history A-Class review process. The A-Class rating is the highest assessment level that may be assigned by an individual WikiProject; higher assessment levels are granted only by Wikipedia-wide independent assessment processes.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
Featured article FA Featured list FL The featured article and featured list ratings represent the pinnacle of article evolution and the best that Wikipedia has to offer; an article at this level is professional, outstanding, and represents a definitive source for encyclopedic information. Featured status is assigned only through a thorough independent review process; this process can be grueling for the unprepared, and editors are highly advised to submit articles for A-Class review prior to nominating them for featured status.

CriteriaEdit

The following tables summarize the criteria used to assess articles at each level of the quality assessment scale. In addition to the criteria, the tables list the assessment process used at each level and provide an example of an article previously assessed at that level.

Assessment criteria for prose articles
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
Featured article FA The article meets all the featured article criteria. Featured article candidacy USS Chesapeake (as of June 2011)
A-Class article A The article meets all of the A-Class criteria. A-Class review Lockheed D-21 (as of June 2011)
GA The article meets all of the good article criteria. Good article review Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith (as of June 2011)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. Individual review Battle of Guttstadt-Deppen (as of June 2011)
C The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Individual review Incident at Xuanwu Gate (as of June 2011)
Start The article meets the Start-Class criteria. Individual review Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (as of June 2011)
Stub The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Individual review Eagle Point National Cemetery (as of June 2011)
Assessment criteria for lists
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
Featured list FL The list meets all the featured list criteria. Featured list candidacy Army of the Danube order of battle (as of June 2012)
A-Class list AL The list meets all of the A-Class criteria. A-Class review List of battlecruisers of the United States (as of May 2012)
BL The list meets all of the B-Class criteria. Individual review List of hill forts in England (as of June 2012)
CL The list meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Individual review List of assault rifles (as of June 2012)
List The list meets the List-Class criteria. Individual review List of Airborne Artillery Units (as of June 2012)
Stub The list meets none of the List-Class criteria. Individual review List of supercavitating torpedoes (as of June 2012)

ProcessesEdit

This section describes the different processes used to assess the quality of military history articles.

Individual reviewEdit

The individual review process is used for all assessment activities up to the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.

Article authors are free to assess their own articles under this process. However, by convention, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at the assessment request page.

Peer reviewEdit

The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.

By convention, military history articles are typically listed in the history section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.

Good article reviewEdit

The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria.

Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.

A-Class article/list reviewEdit

The military history A-Class review process is the most thorough and demanding assessment of article quality done by the Military history WikiProject. An article that undergoes this process must be reviewed by at least three independent examiners, each of whom must agree that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria.

Full instructions for requesting an A-Class review are provided on the A-Class review page.

Featured article/list candidacyEdit

The featured article candidacy and featured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets the featured article or list criteria.

Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.

InstructionsEdit

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

{{WPMILHIST|class=???}}

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

The class parameter should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following classes may be used for non-article pages; many are automatically generated by the template when it is placed on a page of the corresponding type:

FAQEdit

See also the general assessment FAQ and the project's B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ and A-Class review & criteria FAQ.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WPMILHIST}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WPMILHIST}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Military history WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to?
For the most part, yes—in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be made here), and A-Class promotion requires the consensus of multiple independent reviewers. However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.
6. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
7. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
8. 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.
9. Where can I get more comments about an article?
The peer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
10. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
11. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
12. What if I have a question not listed here?
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact the project coordinators directly.

RequestsEdit

Requests for A-Class reviewEdit

Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the CongoBattle of WesterplatteHMS Boreas (H77)Strategic Air Command in the United Kingdom1st Missouri Field BatteryMilorad Ekmečić8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)Hasdrubal, son of HannoFrench aircraft carrier BéarnSMS UndineBattle of Marais des CygnesFrench battleship Charles MartelBattle of TrapaniCrusader statesLisa NowakRevolt of the AdmiralsSpendiusNavy of the Independent State of CroatiaUganda–Tanzania WarManuel Kamytzes


Requests for assessmentEdit

Please note that this section is transcluded from a separate requests page, which you may wish to add to your watchlist.

Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class. If you have made significant improvements to an article against one or more of B-class criteria and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below, specifying which criteria you have worked on. If you feel unable to assess against one or more of the B-class criteria, please say so when posting. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. Please consider entering articles you have improved in the military history article writing contest.

Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for September and check a few of Milhistbot's B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria. Please also delete any that you have checked. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment, whose articles often overlap with military history topics.


  • Tsyrendashi Dorzhiev former stub, please review for B class.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • G'day, thanks for your efforts so far. Can I suggest expanding the lead slightly and splitting the World War II paragraph? I think it would be a good idea to mention his rank and unit in the body of the article also, with a reference. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
      • I have attempted to expand the lead and split the long paragraph for you; can you please check you are happy with these changes and confirm that the refs as duplicated apply to both paragraphs? I haven't added the rank or unit yet, as I wasn't sure which ref (if any) in the article confirms these -- can you please check these and add them as necessary? Finally, I'd suggest adding translations for the Russian language titles using the "|trans-title=" parameter in the cite web template. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Training and Doctrine Command (Nigeria) - Adding this. Ominae (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Armed Forces Remembrance Day - Stumbled on this article. Ominae (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Second Battle of Lexington - Recently overhauled. Not really enough for a GAN, in my opinion, but I think it meets the B-class criteria now. Hog Farm Bacon 21:13, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
And so do I. B class. Lineagegeek (talk) 13:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
--Article progress, Apr-Oct 2020
B1. Suitably referenced and cited. All paragraphs end with a citation; all direct quotes are attributed; All 588 citations now conform to HarvRef format. Redundant footnotes at each cite have been removed, over 45 items. Oldest redundant references, usually from the early 1900s without footnotes elsewhere, are moved to “Further reading”. REMOVED vandal footnotes referencing nonsense, Apple-apps, et al, & WP:blocked Lulu-published works, identified self-published websites for future Talk-page removal.
B2. Reasonably covers the topic. Article top hat: "This article is about military actions primarily." Narrative trimmed over 15% to “readable prose size” by using copyedits and three substantial moves of text-footnote-references to wp:Talks at Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, and British Army during the American Revolutionary War.
B3. Defined structure with a lead section. The lead section is reduced to five paragraphs of summary material from the article. The body is reorganized into six topically focused sections, with half the previous TOC sections. B4. Free from grammatical errors.
-- New images
B5. NEW Supporting infobox and images. Our collaboration at wp:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop published a COLLAGE at Infobox, three images related to the article Top-hat “about military actions primarily”. PORTRAITS: two of the three British CiCs in America; War Chief-Colonels with regular British & US commissions; Mississippi R. conquerors with independent commands: Spanish General Galvez and Virginia Colonel Clark. MAPS: North American Indian tribes & languages; British and Spanish claims, French cessions immediately prior; King’s Proclamation Line and parallel Indian Treaties; SECTION American Logistics & landing scene.
-- New balance. pro-British political image; state-house and 1st Continental Congress scenes; American victory in South scene; British fleet Hudson scene; French-gifted USN ship; Dutch credit in caption at HMS Serapis scene; French fleet at Newport RI; British at Charleston; Galvez with Spanish at Pensacola; (first-last) USS Alliance image; pair portraits for Vergennes of ancient regime & Lafayette of Enlightenment French; Ms. Hart captures 6 British infantry; pair portraits of British Tory-Am-war & Whig-Am-peace Prime Ministers; George III in Speech from the Throne robes for American independence, peace and trade.
-- New sub-sections. British off India; British off Saintes, Caribbean; British defense of Gibraltar scene. AFTERMATH IMAGES, Territory section: paired portraits of of Jay for evacuating British forts & US Gen. Wilkinson for a Spanish agent; scene of Revolutionary graves with mass grave at Saratoga.
--GA-class assessment issues
(1) Nature of the American War: As previously discussed here, whether Infobox should follow “Belligerents” in War of the Austrian Succession, or include “Combatants” in Spanish Civil War, viz. American Indian tribes on both sides, American-side state militias, British-side “Hessians”.
- (2) To accommodate contributors, much detail is maintained in article “Notes” with a HUGE Kb count in an effort to stabilize the article, avoid edit wars, and slow the additions of Talk sections.
- (3) An important group of page editors “source” to references that do not meet wp:reliable source standards. Purging those references and their assertions will inevitably stir substantial controversy again, as it has this year.
- (4) Scope of the American War, whether to apply (a) the definition of an “American War” by founder Jimbo standard with a “commonly accepted reference text”, such as the scholarly reference Encyclopedia Britannica here, “an insurrection” among British subjects, or an internationally accessed Dictionary.com by Random House for the general reader in the English language here, “war between Great Britain and its American colonies”, or
- (b) turn to another methodological approach --- all items for further Project assessment beyond this B-class review request, imo, for later. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The prose checker is clocking this one in a 115kb of readable prose. Per WP:TOOBIG, 100kb is about the max that's generally feasible to have in an article for readibility issues. Any way some of this can get sloughed off into other articles to fix that issue? Hog Farm Bacon 14:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
CONCUR: I have independently tried to reorganize the article. shuffling paragraphs, renaming sections and refocusing them; 3+ years ago jump from 89kb to 108kb; three months ago trim off 110kb; additions since, especially Global war and diplomacy. --- HOWEVER, copyedits have consolidated the “main thing” of the article in four (4) sections: Introduction; War in America; Revolution as civil war; and Aftermath, allowing for easy trim.
@Hog Farm: were you to Review the article, I would follow your suggestion to move 50% of Background and political developments, 75% of Strategy and Commanders, and 75% of Global war and diplomacy to their respective articles, American Revolution, Continental Army, British Army during the American Revolutionary War, and Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War.
- The narrative text, footnotes, and references can be moved administratively to the target article Talk-page, showing ’Citations’ with {{reflist}} and ‘Bibliography’ of {{cite book}} references. Each moved reference can be added to Further reading. I did the same administratively without complaint for hefty chunks of ARW-kb to Diplomacy in the American Revolutionary War, Intelligence in the American Revolutionary War, and British Army during the American Revolutionary War. --- Thanks in advance, I look forward to our collaboration. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Feel free to disagree, as you've done a lot more on this article than I probably ever will, but I think one of the bloat areas are in the armies descriptions. One idea might be (I'm not sure if the sourcing would permit this split or not, so this is just shooting an idea out there) that stand-alone articles could be written about the logistics challenges faced by the two sides, with some of the material from here split out of there. I'm not suggesting that any of this content should be lost, just that it may have other homes. Another thing I notice in the way of working this up to B-class is that the lead is focused mostly on a summary of all of the campaigns, while a sizable portion of the article is about armies, strategy, logistics. The lead will need some work to reflect the full scope of material expressed in this article. Hog Farm Bacon 17:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
First reflex-response is to trim the armies descriptions. (1) “Logistics” sections are certainly the low-hanging-fruit to the purpose: administratively move logistics sections into their respective army articles; more to follow. (2) Noted, the lede needs to be reworked after the article trim.
- (3) More “touchous” may be any “reduce-here-move-there” for the narrative within Global war and diplomacy for (a) the First British Empire more broadly, and (b) Euro great power “Peace of Paris” sorting empire, but without American signatories. Some page-editors advocate for an “international perspective” including battles without evidence in commander-documents that can connect engagements to the ARW, those "after Yorktown" as Mahon (1890) has it in his chapter titles. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
The background might be a trimmable part, too. We still need to keep a decent background, but American Revolution is a separate article which is intended to cover the origins of the actions. There's a decent amount of overlap between the two articles, so that's something to keep in mind, too. Hog Farm Bacon 18:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree, 'Background' is more "fertile ground" for trim, first of all. I'll get back to you here on the results at both 'Logistics' and 'Background' efforts. - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hog Farm and Gwillhickers:
The ARW now passes the Wikipedia:Summary style test for word count. Article prose size (text only)’ now shows 16,144 words, “readable prose size” at 101 kB. The general kB guideline does say, ‘100 kB’, subject to “readability and technical issues”. However, it also notes for estimating purposes, “A page of about 50 kB of readable prose, roughly corresponds to 10,000 words, right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes.”
The ARW “Page size, by word count four-fifths (4/5) of the upper limit. If the upper limit is to be 100 kB of 20,000 words (16144 ARW ÷ 20000 word limit = .81). -- The three-day total kB reduction = 20,832 Bytes by the ARW article ‘Revision history’.
- 1. (-7916 B) Move ‘American strategy, American logistics’ to Talk:Continental Army. Copyedit here. -- 2. (-4976 B) Move ‘British strategy, British logistics’ to Talk:British Army during the American Revolutionary War. Copyedit here -- 3. (-6662 B) Remove political detail off-topic for military strategy and campaigning in ‘Background, Taxation and legislation’ to Talk:American Revolution , copyedit here -- 4. (-913 B) Trim; Move detailed material to Talk:British Army during the American Revolutionary War, copyedit here -- 5. (-360 B) Trim ‘British strategy, Hessians’: some copyedit, move some supplementary detail to Notes. Copyedit here -- 6. (-5 B) trim 'North Ministry collapses' & 'Treaty of Paris': align images to text; trim 'North Ministry collapses' & 'Treaty of Paris'. copyedit here -- 7. (+3 B) ‘Global war and diplomacy, Peace of Paris, reduce detailed international mission exchanges to a Note. Copyedit here.
Respectfully - TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
B-class for MILHIST Project. I didn't change the class on other projects listed as they might have somewhat different ideas about what constitutes B-class. Good work... Cuprum17 (talk) 12:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
B-class. Cuprum17 (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please also check the military history assessment backlog for articles needing assessment.

Assessment backlogsEdit

Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:

StatisticsEdit

  • Quality operations: A bot-generated daily log which lists articles Reassessed, Assessed and Removed.
  • Popular pages: List of top articles with the most frequent views, updated monthly.

Task forces (general topics)Edit

Task forces (national and regional)Edit

Task forces (periods and conflicts)Edit

Special projectsEdit

Operation Majestic Titan assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) assessment statistics

logcategory

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) assessment statistics

logcategory