Wikipedia:WikiProject Sussex/Assessment

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

FAQ

See also the general assessment 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 who
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? : Just add {{WikiProject Sussex}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Sussex}} 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 Sussex 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. 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.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article? : Of course; to do so, please list it in the assessment requests section.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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!
10. 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 directly.

Usage

The {{WikiProject Sussex}} project banner template should be added (not subst:ed) to the talk page of every article within the scope of the project. While the template does not require any additional parameters, it has a number of optional ones that add various extra features to the banner. The full syntax is as follows:

{{WikiProject Sussex
|class=
|importance=
|unref=
|needs-photo=yes
}}

class is for the quality of the article

importance is for the importance for researchers of Sussex

unref=yes if references needed

needs-photo=yes if the article lacks a photograph.

any of the above parameters can be left blank

Comments should be added on the linked Talk sub page created by the template.

Instructions

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Sussex}} 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 Sussex-related articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Sussex-related articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Sussex-related articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Sussex-related articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Sussex-related articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Sussex-related articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Sussex-related articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Sussex-related articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Sussex-related articles)		List

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

NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Sussex-related articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Sussex-related articles)		???

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

Quality scale

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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and 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. 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. 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.	Battle of Hastings
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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. 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. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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 Sites of Special Scientific Interest in East Sussex
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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 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.	The George Hotel, Crawley
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 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. 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. 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. 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.	Gatwick Airport
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.	University of Sussex
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.	A27 road
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.	Burne-Jones baronets
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.	Grade II* listed buildings in West Sussex
NA	Any non-article page that fits no other classification.	The page contains no article content.	Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified.	Category:Hill forts in West Sussex

Importance assessment

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

{{WikiProject Sussex| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

Top

High

Mid

Low

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - The article is about one of the core topics of Sussex. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Sussex-related articles
• High - The article is about the infrastructure or the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Sussex. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Sussex-related articles
• Mid - The article is about a topic within Sussex that may or may not be commonly known outside the Sussex area. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Sussex-related articles
• Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within Sussex and is not generally common knowledge outside the Sussex area. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Sussex-related articles

All articles that lack an importance rating are categorized in Category:Unknown-importance Sussex-related articles.

Importance scale

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
Top	The article is one of the core topics of Sussex.	A reader who is not involved in Sussex 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.	Sussex
High	The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding the history or technology, etc of Sussex.	Most readers will at least be familiar with the topic being discussed.	These articles describe the basics beyond the core topics about Sussex and the more significant historical events in Sussex history. Articles about the most basic topics in Sussex like towns and cities and the most historically and culturally significant topics are included in this level. Some technical terms can be used within articles in this range, but where they are used, they should be explained or at least link to articles that discuss the terms in more detail.	Brighton
Mid	The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history or technology of Sussex.	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 Sussex. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text.	Fishbourne Roman Palace
Low	The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Sussex.	Few readers outside the local area of the article's topic 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 Sussex, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include small villages, local railway stations, that otherwise had no significant impact on the rest of Sussex.	Ifield railway station

Requesting an assessment

This is a list of recent requests. To add to this list please click here.

• I am not a member of this project and do not wish to be, but would ask that the article Wealden iron industry be reassessed and rerated following its recent revision. Peterkingiron 14:46, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Done MortimerCat (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ashurst Wood - I've done a lot of editing to this article and it's currently rated as a stub. It definitely needs reassessing and as I've made a large set of changes it would be more appropriate if somebody else assessed it. Thanks ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Done MortimerCat (talk) 23:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• Kingston near Lewes has been assessed on the UK Geography Wikiproject, but not Wikiproject Sussex. Would it be a good candidate? Autarch (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Kingston was subsequently added. MortimerCat (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hollingbury has been expanded and images added since it was last rated as a stub. Please could you reassess. Hzv5wk (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
• Hassocks is currently unassessed and having a particular interest in the village I would be grateful if someone could have a look at it for me. Many thanks. Paste (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
• Burgess Hill has not been rated in a fairly long time and it would seem that most of the things of the to do list have been done, if not fully to a notably greater extent. Please could you reassess. Curtis31992 (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Cowdray House I've just put a significant amount of history into this article, I don't think it is still a stub, as such would be grateful for someone to re-assess it. I've removed the stub assessment so it's currently unassessed. JonEastham (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

  Has been assessed C. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• Could Littlehampton Redoubt and Shoreham Redoubt please be reassessed? I have added headings, text, images, references and a bibliography to both pages. Are they still stubs? Thank you. Kinnerton (talk) 20:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Done.--Charles (talk) 23:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• I've just merged three articles into Trotton with Chithurst (the merger was proposed 3 years ago, I thought someone should actually do it!). Can someone please reassess that article to account for the additional content? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

  It's now Start class. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• I am not a member of the wikiproject but would like you to assess whether Jerwood Gallery in Hastings (http://www.jerwoodgallery.org/about/the-gallery) is notable enough to warrant an article. 72.244.206.38 (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think almost certainly.--Charles (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• Just came across this, Sussex is rated as start class with a notice saying that it lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations, yet has 137 inline citations and has multiple, detailed sections. Could this be reassessed? Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  19:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Could someone look at Fulking - I think it's moved beyond a stub, and is now perhaps a 'B'. Topo122 (talk) 16:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

  It's now C-class. Tony Holkham (Talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• History of Sussex is currently listed as C-class, but I feel like it should be much higher than that - what do others think?  Seagull123  Φ  19:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Done.----Dorkinglad (talk) 19:17, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessment log

Sussex-related articles:

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

November 24, 2024

Reassessed

• Durrington, West Sussex (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

November 22, 2024

Assessed

• Category:West Sussex subdivision navigational boxes (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

November 21, 2024

Reassessed

• Beehive, Gatwick Airport (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)