Wikipedia:WikiProject Archaeology/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main   Discussion   Outline: The Past   Outline: The Discipline   Participate   Project organization   Assessment   Resources   Showcase  

Welcome to the assessment department of the Archaeology WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Archaeology articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{ArchaeologyWikiProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Archaeology articles by quality and Category:Archaeology articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

This is a bot generated table of the assessment process of WikiProject Archaeology supported articles. It is updated automatically every 2-3 days.

Index · Statistics · Log

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Archaeology WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.


An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{ArchaeologyWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:


The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Archaeology articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale[edit]

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light.
A-Class article A
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 the "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 being a Good article 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, NPOV or 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.
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. For example an article on a individual might cover her personality well, but be weak on back story. 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
Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built.
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful.
The article does not exist and needs to be created.      
Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top High probability that non-Archaeologists would look this up. For instance, Troy. No article should give this rating to any biography without first getting Project approval from the other members.
High Must have had a large impact
Mid Important.
Low Subject is notable within Archaeology.

Requesting an assessment[edit]

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to edit this page and list it below.


  1. Series of articles on Hadrian's Wall Milecastles Milecastle 0 to Milecastle 13 (so far). Sammy_r (talk) 05:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  2. Vinča-Belo BrdoJoseph RoeTkCb, 09:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
  3. Henge Aarghdvaark (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  4. Southeastern Ceremonial Complex Assessed as C while working on WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America backlog; but it's probably at least a B, with potential to become a GA. Djembayz (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. Nordic Stone Age No references for nearly 4 years; eligible for sweeping text deletion. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  6. Wade's Causeway been working on this for about 2 weeks, taking it from a basic stub article, want to get it ready for GA/FA eventually but it needs a preliminary rating from the project -PocklingtonDan (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  1. Romano-Celtic Temple - I've made this and been adding to it over this month. I'd appreciate a review to see if we are at 'Start' or 'C' class yet. Work in progress. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  2. Tel Kabri - new addition to the project. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 1 Tevet 5774 20:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  3. Balangoda_Man - This is rated 'Top-importance' on Wikiproject Sri Lanka but only 'Low-importance' on Wikiproject Archeology. After having made substantial changes to this article to take it up to GA-class, the existing peer-reviewed literature on the subject seems to indicate that the topic (surrounding the earliest prehistoric homo sapiens in Sri Lanka, and South Asia in general) is of much higher importance to Archeology in general. Therefore I would greatly appreciate it if someone could take a second look. Many thanks. Ldesilva (talk) 04:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. List of Scheduled Monuments in Bath and North East Somerset currently at FLC any help or advice appreciated.— Rod talk 18:03, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  5. Xerxes Canal Review for B or C class would be great! Cotopaxi5897 (talk) 09:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Assessment log[edit]

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archaeology articles by quality log


The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archaeology articles by quality