Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Primates
WikiProject

General information
Main project page talk
→ Article requests talk
→ Primate stubs talk
→ Articles by topic talk
→ Cleanup listing talk
→ Popular pages talk
→ Recognized content talk
→ Article alerts talk
→ Expert attention talk
→ Recent changes talk
Article format talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Project portal talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Peer review talk
edit · changes

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Primates! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Primate articles. The article ratings are used to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Primates }} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Primate articles by quality and Category:Primate articles by importance.

Frequently asked questions

[edit ]
How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Primates }} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
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 Primate WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
The Status requester can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
There is an overview at the statistics page, though there is no accurate way to keep track as of yet.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Instructions

[edit ]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Primates }} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Primates| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Primate articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

[edit ]
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
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 :
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral : it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. 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. Everybody Wants to Rule the World
(as of October 2025)
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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
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. Wing
(as of June 2018)
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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. Gravel
(as of January 2006)
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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
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. List of literary movements

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 India.

Note that general notability need not be 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.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Importance standards

[edit ]

The assessment of an articles importance should be objective in nature and follow some basic guidelines. Listed are some of the issues that need to be factored in:

Recognizability/Generality
How broadly recognizable is the subject and/or how applicable is it to primates in general? The more recognizable and general, the higher the importance.
Page popularity
Pages most frequently visited by Wiki patrons should have this factored into their importance rating. This can be checked at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/Popular pages. Consideration has to be given for temporary bumps a page might get due to various reasons, such as media attention.
Captive representation
Whether in zoos or in research facilities, animals in captivity may be of slightly higher interest and importance. This can be checked (loosely) at: ISIS Species Holdings
Representation in academic literature
Heavily researched subjects (including model organisms, highly published researchers, key research facilities) deserve extra emphasis.
Flagship/umbrella/indicator species
Species labeled as flagship species, umbrella species, or indicator species deserve extra attention because of their status. They were chosen for a reason, often due to public appeal. (Ideally, this status should be mentioned on a species' page along with a reliable reference.)
Parent taxa of "important" species
Genera, families, etc. of popular species should also merit attention, especially when they immediately contain model organisms or highly recognized species.
Media coverage
This, of course, drives temporary and long-term interest from the public, but can be hard to judge, especially if the assessment is occurring during a bubble of popularity. Consider this factor with caution.
IUCN rating
Species at risk of extinction require special attention to help educate the public, regardless of whether or not they are a flagship species. Extinct species (evaluated by IUCN only) indicate recently lost opportunities. Near Threatened primates could join the Threatened species quickly. Least Concern or (more questionably) Not Evaluated indicate either high abundance (and possibly already high recognizability) or insufficient information to begin with (meaning we need more research). This can be checked at: IUCN Red List

Unfortunately, some of this can still be quite subjective. The rule of thumb is that the number of articles in each category should relate as such:


# Top < # High < # Mid < # Low


In other words, "Low" importance articles should be the most common, and each rank above it should contain fewer and few articles. "Top" importance articles should be the fewest in number.

For most (~2/3) of the project's articles, importance assessment should be fairly easy since they will have "Low" importance. A small handful will merit "Top" importance for equally obvious reasons. In cases where importance is not so obvious or there is a dispute over the importance, a point system has been developed. For details on how to quantitatively measure an articles importance, expand the text below.

Quantitative assessment for handling disputes or articles that are difficult to assess

If we use a simple point system, bias is less likely to strongly affect importance assessments. The ratings can be assigned ranges as follows:

Score ranges: 0–12

Suggested ranking scores:
Top = 9–12
High = 6–8
Mid = 3–5
Low = 0–2

The following five categories should loosely characterize most—if not all—of the articles within the scope of this project. Each factor is explained, and points are assigned based on specific criteria. Examples are also provided for comparison.


1) Lower taxa (including individual species and subspecies):

Recognizability
+3 for highly recognizable species or subspecies (i.e. Ring-tailed Lemur, Black-and-white Ruffed Lemur, Bonobo, Mandrill, etc.)
Page popularity
+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200
Captive representation
+1 if the species is represented in captivity, such as zoos or research facilities, per ISIS holdings (searchable online)
Representation in academic literature
+1 if heavily studied (model organism, i.e. Gray Mouse Lemur or Ring-tailed Lemur)—use Google Scholar if needed—or is a popular subject in most textbooks (i.e. Bonobo)
Flagship/umbrella/indicator species
+1 for species or subspecies that are flagship species, umbrella species, or indicator species
IUCN rating
+3 for threatened species (CR, EN, and VU)
+2 for IUCN-classified extinct species (please verify at IUCN Red List)
+1 for NT (near threatened)

Examples:

Article Points Score Rank
Ring-tailed Lemur +3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +1 (captive representation); +1 (model organism); +1 (flagship species);
+1 (near threatened per IUCN)		 9 Top
Mandrill +3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +1 (captive representation); +3 (vulnerable per IUCN) 9 Top
Indri +3 (highly recognizable); +1 (top 200 in popularity); +1 (flagship species); +3 (endangered per IUCN) 8 High
Silky Sifaka +1 (umbrella species); +3 (critically endangered per IUCN) 4 Mid
Gray Mouse Lemur +1 (top 200 in popularity); +1 (captive representation); +1 (model organism) 3 Mid
Brown Mouse Lemur +1 (model organism) 1 Low


2) Higher taxa (taxonomic genera, families, etc. up to order Primates):

Recognizability
+3 for highly recognizable higher taxa (i.e. Lemur, Gorilla, Sifaka, Chimpanzee, etc.), even if the name itself is not (i.e. Lemuridae for the Ring-tailed Lemur, ruffed lemurs, and brown lemurs)
Page popularity
+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200
Parent taxa of "important" species
+3 for higher taxa that immediately contain model organisms, flagship species, umbrella species, indicator species (i.e. Ruffed lemur for two flagship/umbrella/indicator species, Mouse lemur for model organism: Gray Mouse Lemur)
+1 for genera represented in captivity per ISIS holdings (searchable online)
Media coverage
+3 for semi-regular media coverage
+1 for sporadic media coverage

Examples:

Article Points Score Rank
Primate +3 (highly recognizable); +3 (top 10 in popularity); +3 (important parent taxa); +3 (semi-regular media coverage) 12 Top
Lemuridae +3 (highly recognizable); +1 (top 200 in popularity); +3 (important parent taxa); 7 High
Mouse Lemur +1 (top 200 in popularity); +3 (important parent taxa); +1 (sporadic media coverage) 5 Mid
Slow loris +2 (top 100 in popularity); +3 (important parent taxa) 5 Mid
Guenon +1 (top 200 in popularity); +1 (parent taxa: captive representation) 2 Low


3) Historic taxa (including all taxa levels):

Recognizability
+3 for highly recognizable taxa, (named) fossils, or common names (i.e. Homo erectus , Neanderthal, etc.)
Page popularity
+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200
Representation in academic literature
+2 if heavily studied (i.e. Homo erectus, etc.)—use Google Scholar if needed—or is a popular subject in most textbooks (i.e. Neanderthal)
Media coverage
+1 if there is moderate media coverage or better
Evolutionary importance
+3 for key transitional fossils

Examples:

Article Points Score Rank
Homo erectus +3 (highly recognizable); +3 (top 10 in popularity); +2 (heavily studied); +1 (media coverage); +3 (key transitional fossil) 12 Top
Australopithecus +3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +2 (heavily studied); +3 (key transitional fossil) 10 Top
Cro-Magnon +3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +2 (heavily studied); 7 High
Babakotia +3 (key transitional fossil) 3 Mid
Hadropithecus no points 0 Low


4) Subjects:

Generality
+3 for subjects that encompasses all or most primates or is a popular subject (i.e. Monkey, Human evolution, Brachiation, etc.)
+1 for subjects that encompass several medium to large groups of primates (i.e. toothcomb, toilet-claw, prehensile tail, etc.)
Page popularity
+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200
Research mention
+3 if the subject is popular in most textbooks on primates or in academic literature
+1 if mentioned occasionally
Media coverage
+3 for frequent media coverage (i.e. human evolution)
+2 for semi-regular media coverage
+1 for sporadic media coverage

Examples:

Article Points Score Rank
Human evolution +3 (highly general); +3 (top 10 in popularity); +3 (research focus); +3 (frequent media coverage) 12 Top
Monkey +3 (highly general); +3 (top 10 in popularity); +3 (research focus); +3 (frequent media coverage) 12 Top
Brachiation +3 (highly general); +1 (top 200 in popularity); +3 (research focus) 7 High
Primate cognition +1 (mildly general); +3 (research focus); +1 (sporadic media coverage) 5 Mid
Toilet-claw +1 (mildly general) 1 Low


5) Famous primatologists/primates:

Recognizability
+3 for highly recognizable primatologists/anthropologists, animals, and organizations (i.e. Jane Goodall, Koko (gorilla), etc.)
+1 for being generally recognizable (i.e. Duke Lemur Center, Bubbles (chimpanzee))
Page popularity
+3 for articles in the top 10 of the project's most popular pages
+2 for articles in the top 100
+1 for articles in the top 200
Widely published (primatologists)
+3 for widely published researchers, research subjects, or major research facilities
Media coverage
+3 for frequent media coverage (i.e. Jane Goodall)
+2 for semi-regular media coverage
+1 for sporadic media coverage (i.e. Bubbles (chimpanzee))

Examples:

Article Points Score Rank
Jane Goodall +3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +3 (reputable researcher); +3 (frequent media coverage) 11 Top
Koko (gorilla) +3 (highly recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +3 (research subject); +1 (sporadic media coverage) 9 Top
Duke Lemur Center +1 (generally recognizable); +3 (major research facility); +1 (sporadic media coverage) 5 Mid
Bubbles (chimpanzee) +1 (generally recognizable); +2 (top 100 in popularity); +1 (sporadic media coverage) 4 Mid
Whiplash the Cowboy Monkey no points 0 Low

If disputes over importance ratings cannot be settled using this detailed point system, they should be discussed on the Project talk page.

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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Assessment requests

[edit ]
  • Hey there, I have added a lot of information onto this article White-nosed saki as part of an education course at university and would appreciate if someone could conduct a new assessment on it for quality and importance. It is currently sitting as a 'stub' but I would love for someone to check it out and reassess it if possible. Vikster28 (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

Example assessments

[edit ]

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.

Quality

  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=FL}} - to rate an article at FL-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=List}} - to identify an article as List-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=Category}} - to identify an article as Category-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=Disambig}} - to identify an article as Disambig-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=Image}} - to identify an article as Image-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=Portal}} - to identify an article as Portal-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=Project}} - to identify an article as Project-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates|class=Template}} - to identify an article as Template-Class
  • {{WikiProject Primates}} - to leave the article un-assessed.

Importance

  • {{WikiProject Primates|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{WikiProject Primates|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{WikiProject Primates|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{WikiProject Primates|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /