Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Singh6 (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 18 November 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WPBiography Sidebar

Welcome to the assessment department of the Biography WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Biography 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.

Category:Biography articles by quality serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. Filling in a rating in the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template on the talk page of an article causes the name of that article to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Biography articles by quality.

Frequently asked questions

How can I get an article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Biography 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!
How may I begin assessing articles?
Assessment may be done through a variety of ways, but the most efficient is through use of the MetaData article assessment script.

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

Instructions on how to assess a Biography article

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed biography articles. At present, there are over 50,000 biography articles that need assessment (e.g., that need to have a class inserted in the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template).

Biography articles to be assessed have some aspects of the {{WPBiography}} template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. First, give yourself access to the MetaData article assessment script by following the instructions at MetaData. Next, select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed biography articles. Then, look over the article in anticipation of filling out the parameters of the {{WPBiography}} template. Finally, select the appropriate answers for the MetaData script. You will be brought to the talk page where you may complete the assessment.

Class parameter

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

Priority parameter

The following values may be used for the priority parameter:

  • Top
  • High
  • Mid
  • Low

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 priority scale below. Note that the priority is used on the workgroup lists only.

Core parameter

The template also has a core=yes parameter for core articles only, as selected by the Core Biographies team.

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. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
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. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
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. Wing
(as of June 2018)
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. Ball
(as of September 2014)
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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
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 literary movements

Priority scale

Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the biography falls under. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority 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).

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top High probability that non-Historians would look this up. Limited to the top 200 biographies. Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world. For instance, Einstein, brilliant physicist, but his theories have affected people outside of physics and in many other countries besides his nation of origin and several generations. His ideas have changed the way people think. No member should give this rating to any biography without first getting Project approval from the other members. Albert Einstein
High Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin. Patrick Henry
Mid Important in their discipline. John Seigenthaler, Sr.
Low Subject is notable in their main discipline. Morena Baccarin

Requesting an assessment

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 list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you assess an article, please remove it so that other editors will not waste time reviewing the same articles. Thanks!

Seeking an A-class rating? Go to the A-class review department and follow the instructions on that page. You might first want to submit it for a Peer Review to allow us more time to respond and review.

Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B', unless they are already rated as 'GA' by Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates.

Edit this section and place request here

  1. Sukhdev Singh Babbar Needs re-assessment - This article has been significantly improved since initial assessment. References have been provided from several continents/countries/United Nations etc. Structure, content, and references all look reasonably solid and appear to deserve well above Stub-class based on the guidelines.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gurdev Singh Debu Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Manbir Singh Chaheru Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Harjinder Singh Jinda Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sukhdev Singh Sukha Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Labh Singh Needs assessment.--Singh6 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kenneth G. Mills has been significantly edited since initial assessment. Structure, content, and references all look reasonably solid and appear to deserve well above Stub-class based on the guidelines.
  8. Pin Malakul - New article --Paul_012 (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Frank País - has been expanded since last assessment. Copana2002 (talk) 19:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Samuel Bowles (journalist) has been extensively rewritten and citations have been added--I believe it should be rated above Start-class. Wesrobking (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2008
  11. Theodore Lukens - New article, my first attempt at a bio-thank you in advance for your time. Marcia Wright (talk) 03:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Swami Nikhilananda - rewrote the stub with refs. I think a assessment is required. Thanks. — Nvineeth talk 12:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. John Pitcairn, Jr. - New article --wormcast (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Herbert Distel - Thanks in advance for rating this biographic article of mine. Tellus archivist (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Joe Cocker - Rated as Start Class in the WP Biography box, but rated B class in the WikiProject Sheffield box. Oldiesmann (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Linda Ketner -Unrated--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Paul Citroen - I think this is more than a Stub-class. SpecialK(KoЯn flakes) 08:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Jim Nussle - B rating, but (was) completely lacking references. Possible edits by subject should be checked for quality. Louis Waweru  Talk  17:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Orfeh - Last rated as a stub, has been expanded since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennamaroney (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Kim Ji-hoo -- expanded from short stub. PC78 (talk) 17:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sierra Swan -- expanded & reorganized from stub. Not 100% complete, but at least 80% complete... 22:20, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  22. Shania Twain - reassessment; hundreds of changes and more references since Start-class assessment. Dan56 (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Lenny Montana -- I expanded on the original stub article by adding a picture, references and adding expanded information on his wrestling and acting carrear. I think it should be upgraded from a Stub Class. Thank you in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveTyla15 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Maud Chaworth- Pretty much a rewrite of the whole article. Expanded on life and family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaudChaworthGroupies (talk • contribs) 23:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Jamie Graham -- expanded, referenced and edited since start-class assessment in June 2007 Stevecudmore (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. The Get Up Kids - Previously a stub rating, the article has been vastly expanded, cleaned up and generally improved since the rating. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 22:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Sir Ewan Forbes, 11th Baronet - expanded & fully sourced. Short an image, but can't have everything. Shimgray | talk | 11:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Ranulf le Meschin, 3rd Earl of Chester, unrated. Punkmorten (talk) 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Dorothy Dietrich - Previously a stub rating, the article has been vastly expanded, cleaned up and generally improved with many added references since the rating. Magicusb (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Former Arkansas State Treasurer and Auditor Gus Wingfield I don't think this has been rated since I made the article. I have since made major changes this year.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Current Arkansas State Auditor Jim Wood I've never got an official assessment for this one. The one on the talk page is just an infobox I inserted from another page. Recently created.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Same thing with longtime state auditor James Herbert Jones. Recently created.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Same issue with Jimmie Lou Fisher's article, though I've also made a lot of changes recently.--Robert Waalk (talk) 02:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Emmy Rossum: I'm requesting a reassessment of the article. I meant to do this a while back, but never got around to it. The article is currently rated as Start-Class, even though it appears to be above that now. -- Luke4545 (talk) 04:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Robert MacLean: I would like to please have an assessment on this biography. Thank you.

Statistics

Current status

Biography articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Core Other ??? Total
FA 34 1,612 1,646
FL 192 192
A 106 106
GA 43 8,173 8,216
B 91 38,022 38,113
C 38 162,456 162,494
Start 2 743,690 743,692
Stub 1 1,034,291 1 1,034,293
List 7,684 7,684
Category 2 293,414 293,416
Disambig 8,107 8,107
File 30,183 30,183
Project 201 201
Redirect 3 42,560 42,563
Template 17,692 17,692
NA 563 563
Assessed 214 2,388,946 1 2,389,161
Unassessed 29,749 29,749
Total 214 2,418,695 1 2,418,910
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 10,705,080 Ω = 5.38


Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month
July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006
FA 34 3.80 % 106 0.08 % 185 0.11 % 193 0.11 % 212 0.11 % 222 0.11 %
A 9 1.01 % 57 0.04 % 77 0.05 % 95 0.05 % 95 0.05 % 104 0.05 %
GA 34 3.80 % 137 0.10 % 195 0.12 % 195 0.11 % 243 0.13 % 266 0.14 %
B 220 24.61 % 1,383 1.05 % 1,967 1.21 % 2,360 1.32 % 2,682 1.44 % 3,060 1.58 %
Start 104 11.63 % 4,107 3.13 % 5,634 3.47 % 6,621 3.71 % 7,980 4.30 % 34,554 9.37 %
Stub 67 7.49 % 3,515 2.68 % 27,816 17.12 % 41,572 23.27 % 43,715 23.59 % 46,635 24.15 %
Assessed 468 52.35 % 9,305 7.10 % 35,874 22.08 % 51,036 28.56 % 54,927 29.65 % 59,904 31.03 %
Unassessed 426 47.65 % 121,800 92.90 % 126,581 77.92 % 127,644 71.44 % 130,325 70.35 % 133,177 68.98 %
Total 894 131,105 162,455 178,680 185,252 193,081
January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007

May 2007

June 2007

FA 238 0.11 % 248 0.12 % 270 0.10 % 286 0.08 % 300 0.08 % 317 0.08 %
A 105 0.05 % 111 0.05 % 109 0.04 % 61 0.02 % 51 0.01 % 62 0.02 %
GA 297 0.14 % 344 0.16 % 358 0.13 % 391 0.11 % 415 0.11 % 451 0.11 %
B 3,583 1.79 % 4,553 2.15 % 6,699 2.52 % 7,420 2.01 % 7,903 2.08 % 9,941 2.52 %
Start 9,617 4.98 % 12,049 6.02 % 16,774 7.92 % 29,405 11.05 % 38,107 10.04 % 60,286 15.44 %
Stub 49,852 24.91 % 62,198 29.36 % 85,677 32.02 % 207,699 56.33 % 219,635 57.87 % 240,797 61.14 %
Assessed 66,124 33.05 % 84,228 39.76 % 122,518 46.05 % 250,411 67.91 % 266,411 70.19 % 311,854 79.18 %
Unassessed 133,957 66.95 % 127,639 60.25 % 143,547 53.95 % 118,311 32.09 % 113,126 29.81 % 81,996 20.82 %
Total 200,081 211,867 266,065 368,722 379,537 393,850
July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007
FA 325 0.08 % 338 0.08 % 360 0.08 % 368 0.08 % 389 0.09 % 409 0.09 %
A 73 0.02 % 67 0.02 % 72 0.02 % 73 0.02 % 74 0.02 % 22 0.005 %
GA 508 0.12 % 547 0.13 % 578 0.13 % 606 0.14 % 638 0.14 % 705 0.15 %
B 11,345 2.77 % 12,551 2.98 % 13,017 2.95 % 13,156 2.95 % 13,323 2.95 % 13,493 2.92 %
Start 72,224 17.61 % 81,464 19.33 % 88,191 19.98 % 89,645 20.13 % 91,489 20.27 % 92,968 20.14 %
Stub 251,820 61.41 % 263,069 62.41 % 284,594 64.46 % 285,629 64.15 % 288,878 64.01 % 296,518 64.22 %
List N/A N/A N/A N/A 79 0.02 % 75 0.02 %
Assessed 336,295 82.01 % 358,036 84.94 % 386,812 87.62 % 389,477 87.48 % 394,870 87.50 % 404,190 87.54 %
Unassessed 73,770 17.99 % 63,456 15.06 % 54,677 12.38 % 55,744 12.52 % 56,426 12.50 % 57,506 12.46 %
Total 410,065 421,492 441,489 445,221 451,296 461,696
January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008
FA 428 0.09 % 441 0.09 % 467 0.09 % 484 0.09 % 499 0.10 % 515 0.10 %
A 19 0.004 % 19 0.004 % 20 0.004 % 22 0.004 % 20 0.004 % 22 0.004 %
GA 757 0.15 % 784 0.16 % 878 0.17 % 934 0.18 % 983 0.19 % 984 0.19 %
B 13,629 2.74 % 13,698 2.74 % 14,023 2.78 % 14,160 2.78 % 14,460 2.80 % 14,594 2.79 %
C N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 119 0.02 %
Start 94,615 19.03 % 95,799 19.20 % 100,651 19.92 % 103,688 20.34 % 109,457 21.19 % 112,541 21.51 %
Stub 308,861 62.11 % 311,161 62.35 % 318,234 62.99 % 323,539 63.47 % 333,698 64.59 % 340,940 65.16 %
List 93 0.02 % 92 0.02 % 106 0.02 % 108 0.02 % 109 0.02 % 114 0.02 %
Assessed 418,402 84.13 % 421,994 84.56 % 434,379 85.98 % 442,935 86.90 % 459,226 88.89 % 469,829 89.80 %
Unassessed 78,898 15.87 % 77,071 15.44 % 70,843 14.02 % 66,799 13.10 % 57,410 11.11 % 53,385 10.20 %
Total 497,300 499,065 505,222 509,734 516,636 523,214

Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class. To calculate the information for one class, where x = amount of articles in class that month and i = amount of articles in the class the previous month... Amount of articles change = x - i; Percent change = (x / i) * 100 - 100, then round up to the nearest one hundredth of a perecent.
August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006
FA +72 +211.76 % +79 +74.53 % +8 +4.32 % +19 +9.84 % +10 +4.72 %
A +48 +533.33 % +20 +35.09 % +18 +23.38 % +0 +0.00 % +9 +9.47 %
GA +103 +302.94 % +58 +42.34 % +0 +0.00 % +48 +24.62 % +23 +9.47 %
B +1,163 +528.64 % +584 +42.23 % +393 +19.98 % +322 +13.64 % +378 +14.09 %
Start +4,003 +3,849.04 % +1,527 +37.18 % +987 +17.52 % +1,359 +20.53 % +1,637 +20.51 %
Stub +3,448 +5,146.27 % +24,301 +691.35 % +13,756 +49.45 % +2,143 +5.15 % +2,920 +6.68 %
Assessed +8,837 +1,888.25 % +26,569 +285.53 % +15,162 +42.26 % +3,891 +7.62 % +4,977 +9.06 %
Unassessed +121,374 +28,491.55 % +4,781 +3.93 % +1,063 +0.84 % +2,681 +2.10 % +2,852 +2.19 %
Total +130,211 +14,564.99 % +31,350 +23.91 % +16,225 +9.99 % +6,572 +3.68 % +7,829 +4.23 %
January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007

May 2007

FA +16 +6.72 % +10 +4.20 % +22 +8.87 % +16 +5.93 % +14 +4.90 %
A +1 +0.96 % +6 +5.71 % -2 -1.80 % -48 -44.04 % -10 -16.39 %
GA +31 +11.65 % +47 +15.83 % +14 +4.07 % +33 +9.22 % +24 +6.14 %
B +523 +17.09 % +970 +27.07 % +2,146 +47.13 % +721 +10.76 % +483 +6.51 %
Start +2,432 +25.29 % +4,725 +39.22 % +12,631 +75.30 % +5,149 +17.51 % +8,702 +29.59 %
Stub +3,217 +6.90 % +12,346 +24.77 % +23,479 +37.75 % +122,022 +142.42 % +11,936 +5.75 %
Assessed +6,220 +10.38 % +18,104 +27.28 % +38,290 +45.46 % +127,893 +104.39 % +16,000 +6.39 %
Unassessed +780 +0.58 % -6,318 -4.72 % +15,908 +12.46 % -25,236 -17.58 % -5,185 -4.38 %
Total +7,000 +3.63 % +11,786 +5.89 % +54,198 +25.58 % +102,657 +38.58 % +10,815 +2.93 %
June 2007
FA +17 +5.67 %
A +11 +21.57 %
GA +36 +8.67 %
B +2,038 +25.79 %
Start +22,179 +58.20 %
Stub +21,162 +9.64 %
Assessed +45,443 +17.06 %
Unassessed -31,130 -27.52 %
Total +14,313 +3.77 %

Assessment log

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/Biography articles by quality log

Worklist

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

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment&oldid=252503294"