Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

"WP:CLASSES" redirects here. For the catalogue of CSS classes, see WP:CLASS.

For a more general overview of assessment at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Assessment.

The following system is used by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for assessing how close we are to a distribution-quality article on a particular topic. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors. Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made.

The quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles. These tags are then collected by a bot, which then generates output such as a table, log and statistics. For more information see Using the bot. (Note that when more than one WikiProject has rated an article, the bot will take the best rating as the rating of the overall article.) The WP:1.0 team is now setting up to use a second bot to select articles, based on the assessments performed by WikiProjects.

Two levels, GA and FA, are assessments made by external panels, rather than by Wikiprojects. Candidates are nominated by listing them at Good article candidates and Featured article candidates. Judgments are made according to the criteria at What is a good article? and Featured article criteria, and the results are listed at Good articles and Featured articles.

It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. It is understood that we each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. Many projects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment.

At present this assessment system is in use in the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and in several hundred WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. As of December 2010, over 2.5 million articles have been assessed. Other languages are now beginning to use the system also.

There is a separate scale for rating articles for importance or priority, which is unrelated to the quality scale outlined here. Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope. See also a proposed template at {{Importance Scheme}}.

Grades

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an official review. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our 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, even brilliant, 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.	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.	L'incoronazione di Poppea (as of August 2010)
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this 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:How to write a great article. 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. Peer review may help.	102nd Intelligence Wing (as of March 2010)
GA	The article has attained good article status by passing an official review. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is— Well-written: the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	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.	Usain Bolt (as of November 2009)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required. 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 it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	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 also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	KV55 (as of November 2009)
C	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much 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 is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	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.	Architecture of Sweden (as of May 2009)
Start	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	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.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Geodia gibberosa (as of July 2009)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: 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. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; 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. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. 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.	Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (as of December 2012)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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.	List of aikidoka (as of June 2007)

Non-standard grades

There are a few other assessments used in the mainspace that are done by WikiProjects but do not fit into the scale; they are not necessarily used by all WikiProjects. The more popular assessments, in no particular order:

Other WikiProject assessments

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
A-BB+ {{Bplus-Class}}	Detailed, clear and accessible, often with history or images; possible good article nominee.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject which attempts to be as accessible as possible, with a minimum of jargon. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information.	May be improved by input from experts to assess where coverage is still missing, and also by illustrations, historical background and further references. Consider peer review or nominating for good article status. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.	Gödel's incompleteness theorems (as of December 2010)
Future {{Future-Class}}	A topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic of which no broadcasted version exists so far and all information is subject to change when new information arises from reliable sources. With multiple reliable sources there might be information that contradicts other information in the same or other articles.	Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event draws near.	Material added might be speculation and should be carefully sourced.	The Waters of Mars (as of May 2009)
Current {{Current-Class}}	A topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers an event or topic that is currently going on; such as football game or a sports team's season.	Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event goes on.	Material added might quickly become obsolete.	2010 Alabama Crimson Tide football team (as of August 2010)
Disambig {{Disambig-Class}}	Any disambiguation page falls under this class.	The page directs the reader to other pages of the same title.	Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created.	Aa River (as of June 2008)
NA {{NA-Class}}	Any non-article page that does not fit into any other category.	The page does not have article content.	May or may not apply, depending on the type of page.	any WikiProject's internal resources
Redirect {{Redirect-Class}}	Any redirect falls under this class.			Collapse Into Now
Book {{Book-Class}}	Any Wikipedia book falls under this class.			Book:Canada
Template {{Template-Class}}	Any template falls under this class.			Template:Magnapop
Category {{Category-Class}}	Any category falls under this class.			Category:George Orwell

Some WikiProjects use additional grades not listed above, such as those used at WP:Comics. Most common are Cat, Dab (for Disambiguation), Current (for ongoing events), Image, Needed, and Template. See relevant Assessment page for the WikiProject, at Category:WikiProject assessments.

Evolution of an article – an example

See also: outreach:Evolution of an Article

This clickable imagemap, using the article "Atom" as an example, demonstrates the typical profile for an article's development through the levels. Hold the mouse over a number to see key events, and click on a number to see that version of the article. Please note that until 2008, a C-class rating did not exist on the project, and as such this grading is retroactive. Also, in 2006 references were much less used, and inline references were quite rare; a barely-B-Class article today would typically have many more references than this article did in late 2006.

Statistics

The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.

The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace.

All rated articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low ??? Total FA 939 1,401 1,304 691 150 4,485 FL 130 503 543 511 122 1,809 A 153 290 472 248 69 1,232 GA 1,454 3,335 6,415 5,916 1,391 18,511 B 9,908 18,719 28,094 19,585 11,184 87,490 C 7,021 19,319 42,404 49,355 27,547 145,646 Start 14,137 58,712 229,521 472,935 191,972 967,277 Stub 4,261 27,891 189,903 1,230,844 873,509 2,326,408 List 2,026 7,757 21,893 52,558 29,833 114,067 Assessed 40,029 137,927 520,549 1,832,643 1,135,777 3,666,925 Unassessed 182 683 1,314 13,107 462,640 477,926 Total 40,211 138,610 521,863 1,845,750 1,598,417 4,144,851

About this table

See also

• Wikipedia:Article assessment, the previous version superseded by this version.
• User:Pyrospirit/metadata, a script (and gadget) that finds articles' assessment information from the talk page and puts it in the article's header.
• User:Kephir/gadgets/rater, a script for tagging articles' talk pages with assessment information
• mw:Article feedback, an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to engage Wikimedia readers in the assessment of article quality, one of the five priorities defined in the strategic plan.