Club Penguin Fanon Wiki:Guide to Rating Articles

From Club Penguin Fanon Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the Guide to Rating Articles on the CPFW. It has been written to help users understand our standards and qualifications for giving articles on the wiki "quality ratings", also known as "rating" articles. In short, quality ratings are estimates of an article's quality based on its content, which are judged by an Administrator or other experienced and approved users. Almost all mainspace articles should have a quality rating, apart from stories.

If you have any further questions, you're welcome to ask on this page's talk page, or on the talk page of any administrator.

What are the Quality Ratings?[edit]

The wiki has five article quality ratings, displayed on each page via an "ambox", or "article message box". Low, Average, High, and Ultra Quality Article are the four main ratings, with Stub being reserved for the worst articles that will likely be deleted in the near future. There is also an ambiguous ambox for articles without a rating, or to be placed on pages where the current rating is being challenged by a user.

Instead of a quality rating, stories should have one of two amboxes, stating their status of either complete or incomplete.

Click "Expand" to View Amboxes

Why do we Rate Articles?[edit]

Article quality is an important part of ensuring that all content on the Club Penguin Fanon Wiki is as high-quality as possible. Ensuring that all works created meet a certain standard is essential to making the wiki presentable to visitors, and generally provides a more pleasant experience for all.

Rating and recognizing higher quality articles also serves to congratulate and celebrate the creations of our hard-working community, and to give all editors a sense of pride and accomplishment for creating excellent work.

How to Rate Articles?[edit]

We have never established strict guidelines on how to determine an article's rating. An article's final rating is up to the rater's discretion, which is why article raters must be experienced on the wiki. In addition, only administrators are allowed to rate articles as an Ultra Quality Article, and are asked to get approval from another administrator to do so. A vague guideline of what qualities certain article ratings typically have exists on our Manual of Style, shown below.

Quality Rating Properties Examples
Stubs -Little to no content
-No images
-No infobox
-Poor grammar
-Poor spelling
-May break the OOC policy
-Often orphaned
Examples of Stubs
Low-Quality Articles -Doesn't have much content
-Poor image quality
-Short infobox
-Poor grammar
-Poor spelling
-Sometimes breaks the OOC policy
-Copies sections almost word-for-word from other pages
-Usually orphaned
Examples of LQAs
Average-Quality Articles -Has a reasonable amount of content
-Fair image quality
-Detailed infobox
-Good grammar
-Good spelling
-Sometimes orphaned
Examples of AQAs
High-Quality Articles -Has lots of good content
-Good image quality
-Detailed infobox
-Great grammar
-Excellent spelling
-Rarely orphaned
-Involved with many other articles
Examples of HQAs
Ultra-Quality Articles -Has a very high amount of quality content
-Many good quality images
-Excellent grammar
-Excellent spelling and vocabulary
-Wide breadth of information
-An integral part of wiki continuity
Examples of UQAs

Who Can Rate Articles?[edit]

All wiki administrators can give quality ratings, along with experienced users approved by administrators. This is to ensure all articles get a fair and proper rating, and whilst the non-administrators below are permitted to rate, administrators still have the ability to "override" ratings that they feel are not appropriate. The following users are permitted to rate articles:

Anybody on this list should have Template:QualityRater on their userpage.

Other Helpful Tips[edit]

Here are some more things to keep in mind when rating articles:

  • Quantity doesn't equal Quality! Just because a page is long doesn't necessarily mean it's good. Don't just slap a quality template on a page after skimming it for length. Long pages that may look like HQA's after a quick once-over may actually be filled with nonsense, lists, quotes and gibberish upon closer inspection.
  • Different types of articles require different levels of scrutiny. The bar is set higher for certain types of articles, such as countries, as opposed to other types of articles, such as handheld items. The amount/quality of content that may qualify a character article to be a HQA may not suffice when rating a country, for example.
  • Stories should not be assigned a quality rating, regardless of award wins or writing style.
  • This rule is confusing and thus flexible, but some non-story articles (for example, Gold) have sections written in a story format. These articles still have to be given a rating. Note that this style of writing generally detracts from the potential rating.
  • Some articles have already been rated, but a "Quality Review" template may still be on it. This means that the article in question may have the wrong rating, so check carefully.
  • The Quality Review template should not be used if you disagree with your article's rating or rater's decision! If you think an article was rated incorrectly, leave a civil message on the talk page.
  • Not all characters without an obvious flaw are Mary Sues! This template should be reserved for legitimate cases that explicitly have no flaws or fit most criteria. If you aren't sure, ask.
  • Bullet lists and tables must be detailed to count towards an article's rating. For example, it doesn't take much effort to make a relationships list containing the names of every character someone has interacted with at some point and it wouldn't count towards the rating; however, a relationships list going into further detail about the relations and interactions between those two characters would count towards the rating.