টেমপ্লেটটিতে সম্পাদনা করার আগে আপনাকে এটির সেটাপ ও পার্সার ফাংশন সম্পর্কে ভালো ধারণা নেবার জন্য উৎসাহিত করা হচ্ছে। যদি আপনার সম্পাদনা কোনো সমস্যার সৃষ্টি করে তবে তা বাতিল করুন, কারণ টেমপ্লেটটি অনেকগুলো পাতায় ব্যবহৃত হতে পারে, যা সবখানে সমস্যার সৃষ্টি করবে। মনে রাখবেন, আপনি যদি কোনো পরীক্ষা-নিরীক্ষা করতে চান, তবে এখানে প্রয়োগ করার আগে তা সাধারণ টেমপ্লেট খেলাঘর বা আপনার ব্যবহারকারী উপপাতায় প্রয়োগ করে দেখতে পারেন।
template or banner - sets the link to the project banner template. Sometimes the banner template is a shared template that is different than the project or uses a different name. Either |template= or |banner= can be used in this field.
task_force - A "yes" in this field changes the wording and link structure to reflect a task force associated with the quality ratings.
tf_link - the name of the task force, use the name of the task force as defined in its wikilink - E.G. Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo/Bar task force.
parent - the name of the parent WikiProject, use the name of the project as defined in its wikilink - E.G. Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo/Bar task force.
tf_name - the name of the Taskforce, use the name of the task force as defined in its wikilink - E.G. Wikipedia:WikiProject Foo/Bar task force.
title_size - This field allows changing of the font size in the title box of the template. The default is 12 pt.
title_style - This field allows changes to the box style. Use standard CSS format, separated by a semi-colon (;).
nocat - A "yes" in this field enables category suppression. Used when in situations where automatic categorization is not desired, such as here where the template is being shown in an example. Please see this essay for further explanation.
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.
Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.
Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.
Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.
Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.
Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.
Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.
Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & references.
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
a particularly 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
Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.
Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.
এই ধরনের নিবন্ধ হয় অতি সংক্ষিপ্ত নতুবা এখানে সংশ্লিষ্ট তথ্যাবলী অসম্পূর্ণ বা এলোপাথারি হয়ে থাকে। প্রনির্বাচিত পর্যায়ের নিবন্ধে উন্নীত করতে এ ধরনের নিবন্ধে যথেষ্ট পরিমাণ সম্পাদনার প্রয়োজন থাকে। সাধারণত এই ধরণের নিবন্ধ খুবই ছোট হয়, কিন্তু অপ্রাসঙ্গিক বা অবোধগম্য তথ্য সংযোজনের ফলে কখনো কখনো যথেষ্ট বড়ও হতে পারে।
যাদের কাছে নিবন্ধের বিষয়টিই অজানা, অথবা যারা বিষয়ের নামের বাইরে সেই বিষয়ে তেমন কিছুই অবগত নয়, হয়তো সেই ধরনের পাঠকদের কাছে এইধরনের নিবন্ধ কিছুটা প্রয়োজনীয়। এই ধরনের ভালো নিবন্ধগুলি অনেকটা কোনও বিষয়ের উপর আভিধানিক সংজ্ঞার সাথে তুলনীয়।
যেকোনও সম্পাদনা বা অতিরিক্ত তথ্যসংযোজনই এইধরনের নিবন্ধের উন্নতিকল্পে স্বাগত।
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.
Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.
Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.
Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.
Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.
Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.
Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.
Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & references.
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
a particularly 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
Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.
Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.
এই ধরনের নিবন্ধ হয় অতি সংক্ষিপ্ত নতুবা এখানে সংশ্লিষ্ট তথ্যাবলী অসম্পূর্ণ বা এলোপাথারি হয়ে থাকে। প্রনির্বাচিত পর্যায়ের নিবন্ধে উন্নীত করতে এ ধরনের নিবন্ধে যথেষ্ট পরিমাণ সম্পাদনার প্রয়োজন থাকে। সাধারণত এই ধরণের নিবন্ধ খুবই ছোট হয়, কিন্তু অপ্রাসঙ্গিক বা অবোধগম্য তথ্য সংযোজনের ফলে কখনো কখনো যথেষ্ট বড়ও হতে পারে।
যাদের কাছে নিবন্ধের বিষয়টিই অজানা, অথবা যারা বিষয়ের নামের বাইরে সেই বিষয়ে তেমন কিছুই অবগত নয়, হয়তো সেই ধরনের পাঠকদের কাছে এইধরনের নিবন্ধ কিছুটা প্রয়োজনীয়। এই ধরনের ভালো নিবন্ধগুলি অনেকটা কোনও বিষয়ের উপর আভিধানিক সংজ্ঞার সাথে তুলনীয়।
যেকোনও সম্পাদনা বা অতিরিক্ত তথ্যসংযোজনই এইধরনের নিবন্ধের উন্নতিকল্পে স্বাগত।
