Template:WikiProject Systems
 | Systems High‑importance    | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This WikiProject banner template uses Module:WikiProject banner, a meta-template for easily creating and maintaining project banners. Please report any errors or feature requests to Module talk:WikiProject banner. Information or warnings about the template are below:
|
 | This template is used on approximately 4,800 pages and changes may be widely noticed. Test changes in the template's /sandbox or /testcases subpages, or in your own user subpage. Consider discussing changes on the talk page before implementing them. |
This is the {{WikiProject Systems}} template which is used to categorize and assess articles within the Systems WikiProject.
To classify an article, place the template {{WikiProject Systems}} on the article's talk page. Anyone can add a WikiProject Systems rating or change an existing rating. The template can be used to assess the importance (or priority) and quality (or class grading) of the article using the importance and class parameters respectively. Specifying these parameters will place the article in the appropriate subcategory of Category:Systems articles by importance and Category:Systems articles by quality. There is also a field parameter to define the subject area of the article.
The (reduced) syntax of the WikiProject Systems template is:
{{WikiProject Systems
|class=
|importance=
|field=
}}
- class must be one of:
- FA (for Featured Articles only)
- A (for A-class articles only)
- GA (for Good Articles only)
- B
- Start
- Stub
- Disambig (systems disambiguation pages)
- Cat (Systems categories)
- Template (Systems templates)
- importance must be one of:
- Top
- High
- Mid
- Low
- NA (for non-articles only)
- The synonym priority is also available for the importance parameter.
- field must be one of:
- chaos theory
- cybernetics
- control theory
- dynamical systems
- enterprise modelling
- operations research
- project management
- scientific modeling
- social systems theory
- software engineering
- systems
- systems biology
- systems ecology
- systems engineering
- systems psychology
- systems theory (general information about Systems theory not related to a particular field)
- visualization
Comments may be left in the /Comments subpage of the article talk page (for example, Talk:Abacus/Comments). These brief comments usually contain suggestions on how the article could be improved to bring it up to the next grade. It is helpful to at least put ~~~~ as a comment, so that the date of the rating can easily be seen. Comments can be added by following the "Add comments" link on the template, and may edited by following the "Comments" link on the template.
If either class or importance is missing, then the article will be placed in Category:Unassessed quality Systems articles or Category:Unassessed importance Systems articles respectively. If field is missing, then the article will be placed in Category:Unassessed field Systems articles.
Summary and assessment criteria
| Summary of {{WikiProject Systems}} importance, field, and class parameters | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Importance: the importance (or priority) of the article/subject, regardless of its quality. | Field: the article's subject area within Systems. | Class: the current quality of the article. | ||
| Top | Extremely important, even crucial, to its field, and very significant beyond it |  FA |
This is a featured article. | |
| High | Contributes a substantial depth of knowledge with significant impact in other fields |  A |
Essentially complete, well written and referenced; possible featured article candidate. | |
| Mid | Adds important further details within its field, with some impact beyond it |  GA |
B+ quality, and also a good article. | |
| Low | Contributes more specific or less significant details, or is mainly of specialist interest | B | A decent article, but it needs further editing to extend coverage or accessibility | |
| Start | Significant cleanup or expansion needed. | |||
| Stub | Article has very little content, or is a stub. | |||
A more extensive discussion on grading criteria can be found at WP 1.0 Assessment.