User:Moabdave/articlegrading

Checklist for grading an article

Each article on AARW should be assigned a grade. Below is a guideline for grading AARW articles. These guidelines are written for road articles. It is understood that for non-road articles and/or special cases such as decommissioned or scenic highways these criteria may not be appropriate. In such cases, use common sense to interpret equivalent criteria as appropriate.

A grade of A requires multiple reviews and will be assigned by the closer of the review. A grade of B requires a 3rd party review and will be assigned by the reviewer. Self assessment of lower grade levels is allowed if the minimum guidelines below are met. However, it is encouraged to ask another editor to grade your work at any level. For the A and B grades, the English language Wikipedia has equivalent review processes. It is acceptable to use these processes for review. In all cases, it is desirable for an A class article to have been reviewed by someone who isn't a roadgeek, to ensure the article is readable and interesting to a general audience. However, passing an outside review does not waive any of the requirements on this checklist, unless that item is not applicable or appropriate for a specific article.

Minimum requirements

E-Class

• Gives basic facts of a road
  • Termini
  • cities or regions served
• Source to show highway exists

D-Class

E-Class plus

• Facts listed
  • Length
  • Approximate dates commissioned and decommissioned (if appropriate)
  • name of agency that owns/maintains the road
• Organized into sections
  • Lead
  • Route Description
• Sources sufficient to show the road exists and is not a hoax, map error, or copyright trap on a map. If source is a statute, or document from the relevant highway agency one is sufficient. If source is a map, should have two from either separate publishers or separate editions.
• Appropriately categorized

C-Class

D-Class plus:

• Infobox containing basic facts
• Facts listed
  • Facts required for E and D class
  • Statue that defines the road (if appropriate)
  • Restrictions (if appropriate: height, weight, no hazardous materials, portions closed in winter, etc.)
  • Alternate names (memorial or colloquial names)
  • Inclusion in alternate highway systems (scenic highway system, National Highway system, etc.)
  • Dates proposed, construction initiated, completed and decommissioned (if known and appropriate)
  • AADT Data, for highways where such data is available

• Minimum of these sections (unless not applicable or appropriate)
  • Lead
  • Route description
  • History
  • Major intersections
  • See also
  • References
• Article lead summarizes the other sections and does not introduce new information, unless such information does not fit into any other section.

B-Class

C-Class plus:

• Complete a peer review, which verifies compliance with these guidelines.
  • If the article has an english language Wikipedia counterpart and that version has passed a review at w:WP:GAC, that will be accepted, provided the AARW version is substantially similar and only differs to address the additional requirements on this list.
• Prose is reviewed to be coherent, concise
  • Free of maintenance or cleanup templates
  • Free of filler or irrelevant text
  • Pop Culture or tangentially related content is allowed, but should be kept at an appropriate level.
  • Complies with the spirit of the style guide at AAroads:MURA
• Route description describes a road beyond cardinal directions and junctions.
• All controversial or key details have a source
  • History is sourced to more than just maps
  • Historical statements cited to maps are checked for appropriateness (i.e. If a specific year is given and sourced to a map, it is checked that the map supports supports that specific year. See w:WP:MAPCITE).
• Contains appropriate images (if available)

A-Class

• Complete an A-class review with a minimum of 4 passed reviews.
  • At least one review must include sourcing spot checks, to ensure sources have been properly interpreted
  • At least one review must include a copyright issues check, both images and prose. Automated prose scanners are acceptable.
  • At least one review checks for accessibility (i.e. all images have appripriate alt-text, no use of color alone to indicate status in tables and graphics, etc.)
  • If the article has an english language Wikipedia counterpart and that version has passed a review at w:WP:FAC, that will be accepted, provided the only significant difference between the two versions is to address the additional requirements on this list.
• Infobox contains map
• If article contains a junction list, the following applies
  • mile/Km distances must be listed and sourced. Listed precision is supported by source
  • Notes are appropriate, not excessive, redundant, or tangential details
  • No frivolous uses of icons or colors.
  • Destinations and control cities are appropriate and not excessive. Sourced if reliable sources exist.
  • Unsigned highways not listed with shields.
• Sources
  • History ideally should primarily rely on non-map sources. At a minimum must have multiple non-map sources.
  • If maps are used, must use multiple maps from more than one publisher. The entire article cannot rely on a single map.
  • Sources are checked for publisher reliability
  • Promotional sources are checked to ensure details sourced to them are appropriate. (i.e. promotional sources tend to exaggerate distances or quality)
  • Appropriate use of visual and map sources (i.e. while Google Maps and Google Street View can be used in some situations, sign errors exist, map errors exist. An article should not make mountains out of mole hills because "Google Street View shows a fact to be true")
• Article should be readable to a non-roadgeek
  • avoid neologisms and alphabet soup without explanation
  • History should include more than just construction and route change details. Should include details that would be interesting to a general audience as well.
  • Route description should be more than a listing of cardinal directions, turns, distances and junctions. The route description should be of such quality that someone who has no prior knowledge of this route would be sufficiently prepared to drive it and not miss any highlights of the route.
  • Route description should not be a regurgitation of a map trace nor require a map to follow.
  • If route has been named a scenic highway, the route description must at least one prose source. This requirement assumes that because the route has been designated scenic, at a minimum someone has already written a route description or at least a list of highlights. It acknowledges that for highways that have not been designated scenic, prose sources for route descriptions are usually harder to find or non-existent.

Point Scale

Note: this is a response to Fredddie's proposal. I like the idea, but would tweak the incentives, so here's an idea for a modification. Number of points for each item below listed in parenthesis

Specific, but important details - (except where noted 1 point for each detail, 2 if properly sourced)

• Length
• Termini
• political divisions served (state/province, county, cities, etc.)
• dates constructed, commissioned, decommissioned, etc.
• maintained by
• Legal details (statue that defines the route, restrictions, etc.)
• alternate names
• Member of system
• Appropriate category (-1 for excessive or irrelevant category)
• Map of route (5)
• Appropriate and quality picture (5 each)
• AADT data (5) (Can deduct points if data is available but article inadequate, Also if relies too much on AADT for filler in the article)

Presence of sections - (2 per) (Note this is just for the existence of the section, though it must have content and cannot be an empty section. Quality of content is addressed below.)

• Infobox
• Lead
• Description
• History
• Major Junctions
• See also
• Other appropriate section(s) (i.e. Pop culture - if route has significant pop culture appeal. Incidents - if route has extensive coverage for multiple incidents. Controversy - if the route has been the subject of significant, well covered controversy. Special route(s) - if road has them, etc.)

Sourcing (points per source used, duplicate sources for controversial details are welcome and encouraged. However, do not count sources only used to inflate point count)

• Online map -(1)
• Government produced map (DOT, USGS, Ordinance survey, etc.) -(2)
• Detailed atlas - (2)
• News articles - (3)
• Transportation agency site or document (3)
• Guide book - (2)
• Other book - (3)
• Vetted road geek site -(1)
• Other reliable source (2-3)
• Unreliable or unvetted site (-1 to -3)

prose quality

1. • Lead adequately summarizes the route description
     • Yes (2)
     • Needs work (1)
     • No (0)
     • Detracts (-1)
   • Lead adequately summarizes the history
     • Yes (2)
     • Needs work (1)
     • No (0)
     • Detracts (-1)

1. Scoring prose of each section (Description, History, etc.) – (20)
   • Length of section is appropriate for the length and age of the highway (2)
     • Appropriate (2)
     • Too short (1)
     • Missing (0)
     • Too long (-1)
   • Quality of the prose (15) 5 points each
     • Informative
     • Complete
     • Concise
       • Satisfactory (5)
       • Adequate (4)
       • Unsatisfactory (3)
       • Needs rework (2)
       • No (1)
       • Missing (0)
       • Detracts (-1)

1. Junction list (10)–
   1. Standard lists
      • Every junction has a milepost (2)
      • Every possible junction has appropriate destination (2)
      • Lengths cited (3)
      • Appropriate notes (1)
      • Uses templates correctly (2)
   2. Bulleted lists
      • Shows every major highway (US: Interstates, U.S. Highways, other freeways) (3)
      • Does not show minor highways (US: state and county highways) (3)
      • Control cities listed (3)
      • Formatted correctly (1)

Miscellaneous

1. • Follows MURA (requirement for B grade regardless of points)
   • Lacks cleanup templates (requirement for B grade regardless of points)
   • Meets accessibility standards (requirement for A grade regardless of points)