Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 90: Line 90:
=== Requesting an assessment ===
=== Requesting an assessment ===
If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.
If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

⚫
*Requesting an assessment of [[No Pants Day]] which I have improved from a stub. I did not add pants. Cheers! <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>[[User talk:BBQboffin|<b style="color:#F00">grill me</b>]]</sup> 05:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


<!--- ♦♦♦ Add a request 🟡 HERE 🟡 below ↓ this line, and sign with ~~~~ ♦♦♦--->
<!--- ♦♦♦ Add a request 🟡 HERE 🟡 below ↓ this line, and sign with ~~~~ ♦♦♦--->
* I kindly request that these articles are assessed. [[Ọjà]] and [[Firewood in Nigeria]]. Thanks. --[[User:Olugold|Olugold]] ([[User talk:Olugold|talk]]) 10:11, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
⚫
*Requesting an assessment of [[No Pants Day]] which I have improved from a stub. I did not add pants. Cheers! <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>[[User talk:BBQboffin|<b style="color:#F00">grill me</b>]]</sup> 05:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
*Requesting an assessment of [[Rashmika Mandanna]] that I completely rewrote and added reliable sources to, along with the addition of her work that was uncovered previously. Thank you! [[User:Iknowthingsaboutstuff1|Iknowthingsaboutstuff1]] ([[User talk:Iknowthingsaboutstuff1|talk]]) 13:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
*Requesting an assessment of [[Rashmika Mandanna]] that I completely rewrote and added reliable sources to, along with the addition of her work that was uncovered previously. Thank you! [[User:Iknowthingsaboutstuff1|Iknowthingsaboutstuff1]] ([[User talk:Iknowthingsaboutstuff1|talk]]) 13:31, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
*Requesting an assessment of [[INS Mahendragiri]] that I started a few months ago. Thanks![[User:Davidindia|Davidindia]] ([[User talk:Davidindia|talk]]) 05:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
*Requesting an assessment of [[INS Mahendragiri]] that I started a few months ago. Thanks![[User:Davidindia|Davidindia]] ([[User talk:Davidindia|talk]]) 05:09, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:11, 20 December 2023

Wikipedia articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FL 1 1
GA 3 11 14
B 7 5 12 15 39
C 6 33 40 60 139
Start 14 65 126 205
Stub 1 10 42 53
List 2 1 6 6 15
Category 112 112
Disambig 3 3
File 44 44
Project 2 4 3 156 165
Redirect 1 7 37 89 134
Template 2 57 59
Other 1 10 11
Assessed 15 57 149 302 471 994
Unassessed 1 1
Total 15 57 149 302 471 1 995
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 2,044 Ω = 4.54
Shortcut

Welcome to the assessment department of the Wikipedia WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia-related articles (for scope, see the WikiProject page). 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 {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Wikipedia articles by quality and Category:Wikipedia articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

See also the general assessment FAQ
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the project talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Wikipedia is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
6. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
7. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
8. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
9. What if I have a question not listed here?
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject Wikipedia|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Wikipedia articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Wikipedia articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Wikipedia articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Wikipedia articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Wikipedia articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Wikipedia articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Wikipedia articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Wikipedia articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Wikipedia articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Wikipedia articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Wikipedia articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Wikipedia articles) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Wikipedia articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Wikipedia articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Wikipedia articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Wikipedia articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Wikipedia articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Wikipedia articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Wikipedia articles) ???

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's 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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a 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:Article development. 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. WP:Peer review may help. 30 years war
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. 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. Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. 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 be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Wikimedia Foundation
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains 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 cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 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. Wikitravel
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A 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
 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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Bellevue School District
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Geographical bias on Wikipedia
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 Wikipedias
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:Wikimedia
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. Wikipedia (disambiguation)
File Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:Wiki.png
Portal Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. N/A
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles. List of media personalities who have vandalised Wikipedia
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Template:Wikipedia
NA Any non-article page that fits no other classification. The page contains no article content. Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified. N/A

Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Wikipedia|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Wikipedia articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Wikipedia articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Wikipedia articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Wikipedia articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Wikipedia articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Wikipedia articles)  ??? 

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Wikipedia.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Wikipedia
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Wikimania
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Polish Wikipedia
 Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Malayalam Wikipedia
 NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. Category:Wikipedia
 ??? Subject importance has not yet been assessed. Magnus Manske

Requesting an assessment

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

  • Requesting an assessment of Automotive industry in China. I have almost rewritten the article and I'm hoping someone could give me opinions on how to improve it by reclassifying it. Thank you! Infinty 0 (talk) 11:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of North–South Corridor, Singapore. I believe I have significantly expanded the original content and should not be a stub-class any more. Would like someone to help give their opinions on how it could be reclassified. Thank you! Chee Cheong Fun (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Odonestis pruni, which was originally a stub. I think it could be start-class now, but I could really use a fresh set of eyes to assess where it's ended up. Many thanks GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of a new page Personality neuroscience created by me. Thank you! AbyssMoon124 (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of a new page I made: Ecological empathy. Thank you! Zen Buddhista (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Zen Buddhista - assessed to C-class article for now. See Talk "Article assessment" for details. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for all the additions you made to my article, @JoeNMLC! I love all the Wikilinks you put in. I added a more substantial summary to the lead section (thank you for that suggestion!) and added more Wikipedia links throughout the article. Is it possible to have a reassessment? Thanks for your help with my article! Zen Buddhista (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting a new assessment of Yoshito Hori-assessed as a "Start" back in 2019. I significantly overhauled it since and this biography might qualify as a B. Much appreciated! Furoba (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Remembrance Day (Hong Kong), which I recently created by translating the article in Chinese and would appreciate any feedback. Thank you! CanonNi (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2023
  • Requesting a new assessment of Guy Lombardo-now assessed as a "Start". New sections, reference citations, audio links, and additional content has been added & this musician's biography might qualify as a B or GA (a nomination has been posted). Since Lombardo was known as "Mr. New Year's Eve" a speedy review might be useful just in time for the Holiday! Enjoy!. Ciao160.72.80.178 (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Portal hypertension, I updated this for a class & would appreciate any feedback. Thank you. Skam1279 (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Utopian thinking, I created this page mainly summarizing social psychological research on it. I would appreciate any feedback. Thank you! --- Kiwimiho (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2023‎
  • Requesting an assessment of Friendship, I added two sections (evolutionary approach and friendship jealousy) and made major changes to the Non-human friendship section (formerly Inter-species friendship). Thank you! --NRodbruin (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2023 (UTC)NRodbruin[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Ecocide, any feedback on specific improvements that can be made really appreciated. John Cummings (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Rome Statute, any feedback on specific changes that can be worked on very much appreciated (thinking about trying to get it to FA). Thanks John Cummings (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of International Criminal Court, any feedback on specific changes that can be worked on very much appreciated (thinking about trying to get it to FA). Thanks John Cummings (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Outgroup Favoritism, a psychological bias contrasting ingroup favoritism. Lcupal (talk) 12:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from November 2023: ⬇
  • Requesting an assessment of Marineros de Ensenada, a Mexican minor league baseball team. JTtheOG (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting a reassessment of Sinus tarsi syndrome, which I have done my best to improve to bring it up to A class with the input of the peer review. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting a reassessment of 2023 Micronesian constitutional referendum, which has been overhauled over the last month and is definitely not a stub anymore. Wherethetacos (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Wherethetacos: Assessed at C class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting a reassessment of Intimate relationship following a recent rewrite and overhaul. A.mollusk (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @A.mollusk: Assessed at B class, only because higher classes need more than one person's input. This article has really come a long way! Left my feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Good luck with your GA nomination! Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for your feedback! A.mollusk (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request reassessment of Susan Schulz. Hopefully my edits have taken it from Stub-class to Start-class.LowellMillGirl (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @LowellMillGirl: Assessed at Start class like you asked. I left some feedback in the edit summary - very good work considering you're a new editor. If you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Pear1020. I really appreciate the feedback! LowellMillGirl (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request reassessment of The Legend of Sleepy Hollow. Article is currently rated Start class, but has substantial sourcing. I have shortened the plot summary and cut down an EXAMPLEFARM to bring it in line with current standards and policy. Hopefully, the newly overhauled article rates at least C Class by now. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Just Another Cringy Username: Article reassessed at B class by Nick Moyes, though I'm sure you're already aware. Posting this here for record keeping purposes. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Elizabeth Greenfield following an expansion; hopefully no longer Start Class. Rubystaramaryllis (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Rubystaramaryllis: Assessed at C class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Michael Kremer following a recent rewrite; hopefully no longer Start Class. RegMonkey (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @RegMonkey: Assessed at B class. I didn't have anything to say - the article is pretty much flawless from my perspective. If you have any questions let me know. Good luck with the GA nomination! Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Carl Værnet following a recent overhaul. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Zenomonoz: Assessed at B class. Good job fleshing out the article. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment for Neil Robinson (baseball) Onagtruk (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done @Onagtruk: Assessed as C-class. See talk page for details. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment for Statistical system of Bosnia and Herzegovina AriTheHorse 05:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @AriTheHorse: Assessed as B class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment for Mexican actor Jorge Russek. JTtheOG (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @JTtheOG: Assessed as C class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article MegaCon has been overhauled in the past couple months from a starter class article reading like incomplete tidbits of info into an informative read with much cited research done into the event's history. I'd say this could be a B or even GA class article now. ShadowDragon343 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @ShadowDragon343 Assessed as C class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited both Battle of Cynoscephalae and Pee curl a whole bunch in order to fix some issues (distinct lack of citations (template had been there since 2015) and other historical issues that came with it on Battle of Cynoscephalae - issues in translation, citations and additionally just fleshing out the article on pee curl) and was wondering whether both could potentially be assessed. CommissarDoggo (talk) 14:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Partly done @CommissarDoggo:
    • Battle of Cynoscephalae assessed at B class. Thank you for improving the article's sourcing! I left some feedback in the edit summary.
    • Pee curl still has significant issues with the amount of citations (as detailed in the maintenance template), so I have left it at C class.
    Please let me know if you have any questions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 18:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No questions, just glad they've been looked at and proper pleased that the battle was re-assessed, I just wish I could've found more citations for it than I did. Thanks! CommissarDoggoTalk? 19:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the Marcus Rediker page. It's definitely not stub class anymore. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 06:26, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pac-Man PHD:  Done Reassessed as B-class. Thriftycat Talk • Contribs 21:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from October 2023: ⬇
  • Another article I've edited, Aberffraw, Anglesey is no longer a start class because of my additions and needs a better rating. But more importantly, Talk:Aberffraw is listed as Wikiproject city, which it is not, it's a village, and in the talk rating, it is also listed as a Celts project, not too sure about that either, maybe the House of Aberffraw, perhaps a review is needed of the article interests. Cltjames (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at the descriptions of each WP:PROJECT, "towns and various other settlements on Wikipedia" are under the coverage of WP:CITIES, and "modern day Celtic nations" are under the coverage of WP:CELTS.
    Hope this helps and hope you get a reassessment soon~ ^^ - azpineapple | T/C 09:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, requesting Hughes-Hunter baronets article which I've slightly improved, it's no longer a stub. Cltjames (talk) 03:19, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Cltjames Assessed as Start class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:01, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, requesting a connected article, Ellis-Nanney baronets reassessment from the start class, a lot of work was conducted by myself on the article a month ago, and it hasn't been assessed since.Cltjames (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Cltjames: Assessed as B-class. Good job fleshing it out. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:09, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that assessment. It was originally a redirect, and I felt there I'd written a sufficient article for Hugh Ellis-Nanney to separate into 2. Although both are relatively small, the information about the person and his baronetcy is much improved, and also correctly structured for readers to enjoy learning his biography and peerage. Cltjames (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment for Hugh Ellis-Nanney please, worked on it a few years ago and fine-tuned the article over the past few months. Cltjames (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Cltjames: Assessed as B-class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting reassessment of West Point, New York. I've worked on it for a while, and I'm just curious where my contributions got it to. Thanks! ‍ ‍ Relativity ‍ ‍ 03:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Relativity: Assessed as B-class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting (re)assessment of Flyover (Apple Maps). Have added a considerable amount since it was AFC accepted, and I would like to know if the article is C-class yet, or if it still needs more work to get there. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @47.227.95.73: Assessed as C-class. Good job on improving the article! I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:16, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request reassessment of Tom Ripley. Article is currently rated as Start class, but has substantial RS. I have also removed a good deal of fluff and original research, resulting in a tighter, more substantive article. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Reassessed as C Class by Nick Moyes. Posting this for record-keeping.
    Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I am requesting an assessment check of Adolf, King of Germany to see if it is B-class worthy. It would be much appreciated by the Holy Roman Empire Task Force. Thank you. User:Momgamer09 (User talk:Momgamer09)
     Not done @Momgamer09: While the article is very fleshed out, there simply aren't enough citations to bring it up to B class. Please let me know if you have any questions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t have any questions. I’ll help work on adding more citations. Thanks for the feedback. Momgamer09 (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I am requesting an assessment of Rubina Yadav, please. Much appreciated! Davidindia (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)Davidindia[reply]
     Done OP reassessed as Start class. Posting here for record keeping purposes. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello—I'm requesting a re-assessment of Saskatoon Valkyries, please. I appreciate it! Other justin (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Other justin: Assessed as C-class. Great job fleshing it out. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to request a re-assessment of Konecranes. It has a stub assessment but I added content to it and is now much larger. In my opinion it does not fit that assessment anymore. Yökyöpeli (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment for Xujing. Currently unassessed and I have just expanded it recently. - azpineapple | T/C 07:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done @Azpineapple, Assessed as start-class. See assessment details here on Talk page. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I'll definitely work on this article further once I have time :) - azpineapple | T/C 08:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool cool, I should also let you know I recovered two of the sources with IABot after my assessment, so the dead links are no longer an issue. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears stats.gov.cn had just decided to move these to a different subdomain. I've found the updated links and added them to the article so all good in that respect now :) - azpineapple | T/C 08:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am requesting an assessment for Exercise Cambrian Patrol, it is currently Start-class but I have improved it massively. Dolphinwaxer (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done @Dolphinwaxer: The article has no citations and is quite short, making it not qualify for C class at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment for Mercedes-Benz EQE SUV. I have expanded it significantly, and does not fit into the start-class category. I would say this article belongs well into either the B- or C-Class category QuattrostagioniIV (talk) 08:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done @QuattrostagioniIV: While the article is well written and cited, it is still quite short and therefore does not quite qualify for C class at this time. Please let me know if you have any questions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment for Armenians in Azerbaijan. It's currently rated as stub-class, but definitely doesn't fit in that category. I'm not the one who expanded it, I've just come across it. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 22:50, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Sawyer-mcdonell: Assessed as C-class. Good catch! I left some feedback in the edit summary for anyone who is interested, though I know CTOPs are more difficult to fix up. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 15:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to request a re-assessment of Weak (AJR song). The article is now much larger than the previous stub assessment. Thanks. Koopastar (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Koopastar: Assessed as C class by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, though I'm sure you're already aware. Posting this here for record-keeping purposes. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from September 2023: ⬇
  • Greetings, requesting an assessment for Lafayette L. Foster's article, which I have recently expanded. Aquabluetesla (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Aquabluetesla: Assessed as C class by Demt1298, though I'm sure you're already aware. Posting this here for record-keeping purposes. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can I request an assessment for Bertram Fletcher Robinson, which has been significantly improved since its last assessment some fourteen years ago. Thanks in advance. Prspiring (talk) 12:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done @Prspiring: While the article is so close to A class, there are some sections missing citations that make it just fall short. A few more citations and it is an easy A class. Frankly there's nothing that couldn't be ironed out in the GA nomination, if you're willing to go that route. Please let me know if you have any questions. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of K-Meleon, after rewrite. Thanks in advance, Rjjiii(talk) 08:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Rjjiii: Assessed as B-class. Agree with the peer reviewer, pretty close to GA. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Facundo Torres, which I have greatly expanded upon, mostly back in July. Thanks! :) ~~ Raskuly (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Raskuly: Assessed as B class. Great work! I left some feedback in the edit summary, though I had really nothing to say, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask.Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Burn the House Down (song), which has received a high amount of expansion from me. Thank you. Koopastar (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Koopastar: Assessed as start-class. A few statements are unsourced, and the lead could use some work. A few of your sources (youtube, imdb, twitter if possible) also need to be replaced with more reliable ones. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • i request that someone assess Gunggari people, which i've been expanding recently. thanks. Yainsley (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Yainsley: Assessed as C-class. Some of the statements are unsourced. History6042 (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am formally requesting that the articles Mel Carnahan and 2000 United States Senate election in Missouri be re-evaluated. I have made significant edits to them, and I believe their current ratings are outdated. Thank you. FountofInterestingInfo (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Mel Carnahan: Assessed as C-class. Some simple feedback on article talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reassessed as B-class following completion of suggested edits. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choose Love (film) has recently been expanded, mostly by me, following the film's release. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 21:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @CopperyMarrow15: Assessed as C class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pear1020, I have added a citation as you suggested. –CopperyMarrow15 (talk | edits) Feel free to ping me! 18:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @CopperyMarrow15: Good job! I went ahead and reassessed it as B class. Great work on the article. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 14:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of De Olde Molen. This article has been expanded significantly and would benefit from an assessment to ensure it meets Wikipedia's standards. Thank you. Kallmemel (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Kallmemel: Assessed as B class. Good work here, I know these relatively obscure subjects are difficult to source so well. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 16:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting a reassessment of Jonathan Allen (journalist). JoeNMLC believed that the article was worthy of being assessed by people more familiar with the subject and/or political journalism. The WP:RATER tool shows "Class B, or better" at 95 percent prediction. I would just like to improve this article as much as I can. Thank you. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @Pac-Man PHD: Assessed as B class by ClydeFranklin, though I'm sure you're already aware. Posting this here for record-keeping purposes. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:02, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Jonathan Allen (journalist). I made several changes to the article (such as adding images and rewording sentences to make them less redundant) since it was initially assessed.Pac-Man PHD (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - Upgraded from class Start to class C. See article's Talk for assessment details. Cheers! JoeNMLC (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from August 2023: ⬇
  • Requesting an assessment of 2023 Premier Lacrosse League Season. I've recently done a string of improvements to the article that I think puts it at C-class. It's difficult for me to assess the article myself as I've never assessed an article before and the leagues size makes it difficult to compare to similar articles like that of the NFL. I plan to continue revising the article but I would like to know where it currently stands. Thank you. Jsfxmn(talk) 4:28, 5 August 2023 UTC
     Done @Jsfxmn: Assessed as C class. I left some feedback in the edit summary, if you would like me to further elaborate feel free to ask. Pear 2.0 (say hi!) 17:51, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of Smallhythe Place after a campaign of improvements. I think it's B-class, but having never self-assessed before I'd appreciate an expert opinion. Thank you.Isaksenk (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting an assessment of the page The Rebellion (MLS supporters association). I based it on the other pages for Major League Soccer fan clubs but I'm not entirely sure where it stands and would like someone else's opinion. Thank you! User talk:EmperorQuingus 04:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obturator hernia my group has made substantial edits to the page, including citations of systematic reviews that are relevant to date and would like to be reassessed for a C-Class or B-class article. Thank you. User: immanueltjahjadi (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Supremes discography I've made substantial changes to this over the past few years and believe it's no longer "start class". Eventually aiming for GA-Class/FL-Class and would greatly appreciate any suggestions to get it to that standard. Many thanks JonathanLGardner (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from July 2023: ⬇
  • Tilaka requesting a reassessment from it's current rating as a start class article. Some clean up and copyediting was done to the article. Chilicave (talk)
  • Jamie Muscato I've expanded upon the article and made revisions. I would like to see if it would still remain in C-Class standards. Arsoniel (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting assessment for Ed Bodin, in the time since it was last accessed the article has heavily increased in quality. DvcDeBlvngis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Assessed as Start-class, rather than C-class as a lot of information about his life is not covered/known. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from June 2023: ⬇
  • Requesting assessment of Deep diving. Expanded and referenced. Was assessed C-class in September 2009. Alfie↑↓© 12:59, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am requesting a review of sections 2-7 of Chinese Legalism. I am not requesting a review of sections beyond this, as I have not much worked on and reviewed the sections beyond this, they are older. I am only requesting a review of the writing, concept, the content, the organization. As to the sourcing, the sourcing should be there, but my sources have become disjointed in places with rewriting, I am working on reconfirming and properly organizing them, which can be seen in some places. And I would of course have to introduce additional source content.FourLights (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from May 2023: ⬇
  • Prunus salicina Revised significantly, and expanded on; no longer start-class, maybe B or C class. Would appreciate assessment or feedback. --Kai Retter (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​ Done Assessed as C-class. Recommend copyediting (e.g. WP:GOCE) for further improvement. Vaticidalprophet 00:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thank you for the assessment! Is there any specific copyediting you'd recommend? Kai Retter (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from April 2023: ⬇
  • Assessment requested for Pusheen. Several users (including myself) have made cleanup edits and slight expansions to the article over the past several months. I just noticed that the article is still showing up as a Stub. Top5a (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting assessment for 1984 New York City Subway shooting, which was recently promoted to GA status.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - @1namesake1, At article Talk I added WP Engineering, WP Sports. The Rater assessement tool shows ORES prediction of 73.1% for Class-B. For now, I set at Class-Start level. Anyone else here is welcome to re-evaluate and possibly upgrade. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 21:52, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! 1namesake1 (talk) 16:32, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eric Harroun I gave this page a glowup, I'd argue it meets Good Article standards imo. The article is pretty complete in terms of info; there's not much more reliable info available on him outside of what's currently included. There's also no copyright-free photos of him, based on some searching. I included several general relevant images Toobigtokale (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • ​ Done Assessed as B-class. I agree it's pretty close to GA. As he's deceased, you can use a fair use image without worrying about copyright. Vaticidalprophet 00:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, didn't know about the deceased fair use thing! toobigtokale (talk) 01:52, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from March 2023: ⬇
  •  Done Assessed by someone else as B-class back in March 2022. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from February 2023: ⬇
  • Requesting reassessment for Nikki Budzinski. This was the version assessed as start-class in May. I think it has improved in quality, perhaps to a C-class, with edits from myself and others, but more importantly it is not low-importance anymore: there are 17 US representatives from Illinois. Heavy Water (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - @Heavy Water, article remains at Class-Start for now. See article's Talk for assessment for details. JoeNMLC (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there - I am in the process of updating and revising Nursing in Australia and while there is still much to achieve, I feel it is of a higher status than a "start" article. Could someone please have a look, rate, and provide advice. Thanks Adamm (talk • contribs) 01:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Assessment remains Class Start, needing improvements for upgrade to a Class C level. See article's Talk for details. JoeNMLC (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Assessed as only just scraping through to merit C-class. Still insufficient content based on independent sources. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin Laland has been expanded and a name change has been documented. Would like to request a new assessment and also seek advice on changing the title of the page. FlybellFly (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
➡ Requests from January 2023: ⬇
Requests from 2022
  • Requests from 2022: ⬇
  • Requesting assessment for Political editing on Wikipedia. The previously-assessed version was a WP:STUB, and that's no longer the case. With thanks. François Robere (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Already done by a different editor. Assessed as list class. (Article was moved) ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Donald Cline - (Project: Lowest quality high-popularity articles). Article currently unassessed. Added stub tag and expanded article. This article can still be expanded but should now be sufficient to classify. Thanks. Wikijenitor (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done though not by me. According to the talk page, this article has been assessed as B-class. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 20:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jenn Colella — extensively revised and expanded. Self-upgraded from 'Start' to 'C' class on March 11th, but with work now substantively complete, would appreciate an objective opinion for the article's current grade. Thank you. ~ OldBeeg (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done @OldBeeg, belated assessment details here at article Talk page. Remain Class-C for now. JoeNMLC (talk) 10:04, 25 October 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]
  • The article The Benza was first ranked in 2019 and has been expanded on since then greatly. If someone has time, a reassessment would be appreciated. Thank you!-Craft777 (talk)14:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Assessed as C-class. Season plot sections are a bit long, and the "Plot" section was a copyvio which I removed. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 20:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment log

Wikipedia articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


June 21, 2024

Removed

June 19, 2024

Assessed

Removed

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikipedia/Assessment&oldid=1190875375"