Welcome to the assessment department of the Lithuania WikiProject!
The goal of this department is to accurately rate the quality and relative importance of Lithuania-related articles on Wikipedia. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. The ratings are modeled after the WP:1.0 program guidelines and are expected to play a role in it.
Just add {{WikiProject Lithuania}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else. However, we would certainly appreciate if you could rate the article according to the guidelines below and leave a short summary of your rationale on the talk page.
2. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles we are interested in and helps to prioritize work. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
Any Wikipedian, who has familiarized himself/herself with the guidelines below, is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
5. 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.
6. 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 raise your objectins on the article talk page.
7. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are subjective, especially concerning importance. However, it's the best system we've been able to devise. And it works pretty well for many different WikiProjects. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Lithuania}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
An article's importance assessment is generated from the |importance= parameter in the {{WikiProject Lithuania}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Lithuania|importance=???}}
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):
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;
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
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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.
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);
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
We recognize that importance is a relative term. An article judged to be "Top-importance" in one context may be only "Mid-importance" in another. Any importance ratings applied by this project, only reflect the perceived importance to this project. The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather it should serve as a guideline for project participants to determine which article should receive more attention.
Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.
Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.
Dan, it's not talk rated, It's notability of Konstantinas Sirvydas article.--Lokyz 15:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe that's what he meant.:-) I think it deserves to stay at its current classification, though. --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 16:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Užupis is currently classified as Stub-class, but I think it's improved since its last rating. I did the last rewrite, so feel free to gab at me if you have complaints!:-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight⊖ 13:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe Telšiai deserves to be Top importance. But I cant figure out why Telšiai County is so notable (Top importance) to compare with, for example, Vilnius county or other topics? Yes, the article is almost empty, but it is not the reason for top importance. Orionus 08:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
There are tons of inconsistencies in tagging the importance (because no one bothered to develop a clear guideline or structure). Be bold, and thanks for cathing it! Renata 12:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Drąsius Kedys should be moved upward in the scale. Additional input to the article needed as well.
Request for assessment: Kyviškės Airfield is listed as "Start class", but it seems to meet all the criteria for Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria. The importance is currently listed as Low, but "Mid" would be more appropriate. It is the main airport near Vilnius when it comes to trainings, events, movie sets and leisure flights. It is also more notable than Klaipėda Airfield, which has "mid-importance" rating. Frequently.by.train (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
As for importance, should it be mid or high? It seems that high would be most appropriate. Less prominent and less important Lithuanian airfields are often ranked mid, for example Klaipėda Airfield, Kazlų Rūda Air Base, Jonava Air Base and others. High feels approapriate looking to what is ranked high, for example Palūšė, Vilnius Book Fair, Stelmužė Oak and others.
Would it clear the bar for Good article? There are airport related articles of similar quality which are rated "good article" for example Trondheim Airport Station, Rørvik Airport and others. It feels like a 50/50 case for me. If it is enough for “good article”, then it is great. Great because it could serve as a template for other small airfields in Lithuania, Baltics and beyond. If it is not enough, what should be improved?
@Frequently.by.train: Considering that the airfield has way more notability and importance than the Lithuanian airports you linked to and which are considered mid-importance, I would be all for classifying this as a high-importance article.
Regarding the class criteria, it definitely passes B-Class. Personally, I think that the article deserves just slightly more work for it to be a Good article, because it now has many facts about why the airport is important, but it feels like it should have larger paragraphs. For example, for cinema, I would name more series and such, while for the war and independence section, I would add more information like the names of the Soviet air force units. Please note, these are just ideas and I myself will not classify the article as good because I don't think it fair for me to able to label articles good or not when I have not created an article that has been labelled a Good article.
Anyways, you should put the article forward for consideration as a good article in a more general wikiproject like Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation, because people there will most likely now what constitutes a good article about an airport. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
It feels that someone else should do it, given that I wrote most of that particular article. Signed Frequently.by.train (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I'll do it for you then. Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who does a lot of assessing: importance scale is generally not important, as in - almost nobody pays attention to this. Not to say you cannot seriously consider it, it is just a discussion about how important is an article is something I see maybe once every 5 years if not 10... Now, quality assessment is more relevant (folks care about it more). But frankly, stub to B is a rule-of-thumb done by individuals who care. A few project have B-class review systems but most are not active enough for it to work, I think milhist and biography are notable exceptions (I tried to make it work for Poland and gave up, nobody but me assessed stuff). So from where I stand, anyone can change the importance as they wish, and quality, up to a B, sure. That said, the article looks rather short for me, and I'd assess it as C myself unless I was sure it is reasonably comprehensive. See also WP:ASSESS guidelines. B-class articles should be "mostly complete". Is that article mostly complete? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for such a thorough response.
I think it's complete, it covers a variety of topics and there is hardly any more information on a tiny airfield without commercial flights. Frequently.by.train (talk) 18:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
@Frequently.by.train: Hi, thanks for participating in WikiProject Lithuania. The article of Kyviškės airfield is quite good and well-referenced (being a suitable combination of this, I think it already passes B-class criteria). Nevertheless, I have doubts if article about Kyviškės airfield is high-importance because per article content it is a "small regional airfield", "As of 2023, this airfield is primarily used for events and trainings, no domestic or international commercial routes operate here", therefore I highly doubt that it is as important as the Vilnius Airport (the main airport of Lithuania's capital Vilnius; also rated as high-importance article). Given quite important moments in Kyviškės airfield's history, I think it would be better to qualify it as a mid-importance article. -- Pofka (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, much appreciated. I agree, it is definitely much less important than Vilnius Airport. Frequently.by.train (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
