Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment
Wikipedia articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | Total | ||
FL | 1 | 1 | |||||
GA | 3 | 12 | 15 | ||||
B | 8 | 6 | 12 | 16 | 42 | ||
C | 6 | 32 | 41 | 62 | 141 | ||
Start | 15 | 63 | 130 | 208 | |||
Stub | 10 | 40 | 50 | ||||
List | 2 | 1 | 7 | 6 | 16 | ||
Category | 114 | 114 | |||||
Disambig | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
File | 44 | 44 | |||||
Project | 2 | 4 | 3 | 156 | 165 | ||
Redirect | 1 | 7 | 42 | 92 | 142 | ||
Template | 2 | 35 | 37 | ||||
Other | 3 | 2 | 5 | ||||
Assessed | 16 | 58 | 149 | 317 | 443 | 983 | |
Total | 16 | 58 | 149 | 317 | 443 | 983 | |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 2,060 | Ω = 4.52 |
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
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.
|
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:
|
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. | N/A |
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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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. | 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 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:
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.
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.
- Blue baby syndrome - I have made significant contributions to this article through my WikiMed class and would love for it to be re-assessed! Stephhads (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Icebox Cake - requesting reassessment with added information. I think this should go to start-class, although not entirely clear what kind of additional information is available for icebox cakes that could be added. ChunyangD (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Davidson College - Currently start-class. Does it meet standards for promotion? Many thanks. --Gprobins (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- Edith Gwynne Read - requesting assessment please, thank you!! Minard38 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nottingham Goose Fair – I've done a lot of work to improve/expand this Start-Class article over past 12 months and consider it's ready to be promoted to at least C-class or even B-class. Please review, thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Roanoke Colony has been heavily revised and expanded, and is need of a reassessment. I'd appreciate any feedback on how to further improve the article. --Jim Into Mystery (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have made significant changes to the ASVOFF, Diane Pernet, Allan Porter and Camera (magazine) articles: could someone please re-asses them? Thanks in advance. TP ✎ ✓ 10:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Tottenham Mandem made significant changes and expansion to the article. Currently rated start class. Thanks!Madbrad200 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- Railway electrification in the Soviet Union is much improved and expanded (mostly by me) since the last assessment.
- The article Oceana (non-profit group) has been entirely rewritten since it's last assessment. The only thing that remains unchanged, I believe, is some basic info in the infobox. Thanks! Toad02 (talk)
- The article Prehistoric_art, which is classified as a level-2 vital article, was originally rated Start-class. It has been changed considerably since its rating. LivinAWestLife 12:56 19 June 2019
- The article Japan National Route 4 has been expanded a lot without reassessment. ∻ℳcCunicano 02:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
- The article Alliteration (Latin) has been up for over a year without an assessment. May I request one? Thanks. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article Chichewa tones is a companion to Chichewa tenses. The latter has been classed as "B", but the former as only "C" ("The article is substantial, but is still missing important content etc."). Since it was first assessed Chichewa tones has been improved and edited: it is hard to see what content could now be added, since there is very little in the recently published Phonology of Chichewa by Downing and Mtenje (OUP, 2018) which is not covered in the article. I would therefore respectfully request a reassessment, if possible. Thank you. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- The article Ancient Greek accent has now been substantially rewritten and enlarged from the time it was first assessed and the number of pageviews has increased as a result to nearly 2000 a month. The assessments "start" class and "low" importance therefore seem no longer appropriate, and I would like to request a reassessment if possible. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I've made significant additions and improvements to the page Inch, Edinburgh. It's currently a stub class article. Please assess and update its quality rating. Thank you.Papamac (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
- I've built an article on Ran Ronen-Pekker and other editors have reviewed and improved it. Would love an assessment and rating. TIA! Hydromania (talk) 10:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've made significant changes to four pages: Dissostichus, Chaenocephalus aceratus, Channichthyidae, and Notothenioidei and would like to request a reassessment. Many thanks! Ambiederman (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
- I would love for someone to take a look at Gioachino Greco. There's quite a bit of new material! Mack Robot (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
- Request for objective assessment of Montsoreau article. Thank you. Philippe49730 (talk) 24 December 2018.
- I haven't made any changes, but was interactive computation intended to be rated as a Top Importance mathematics article? To me personally that is quite a surprising rating, and I can't help but suspect that it got mixed up with interactive computing. --- Astrophobe (talk) 02:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
- Politely requesting a re-assessment of Freedom of religion in Australia. Extensive updates with more detail have been added, and this information will hopefully move it beyond start class. Thank you in advance! ruperttrepur (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- screened subnet article quality is unrated. Article has been updated considerably. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 07:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like an assessment of Andrés Manuel López Obrador. I've increased the size of the article due to the lack of interested editors and recent events. Thank you.Gumbi93 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
- Request For Objective Assessment Of Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Ajmer.Thanks.
- I've nearly tripled the size of the article Nynorsk. It is certainly no longer qualified as Start-Class. Would appreciate it if it could be reassessed. Thanks. Stusseligbruker
- Over the past year or so I have made several changes and additions to Los Alamos, New Mexico. Please assess this article. Thank you.
- The article Liat Towers has not recieved an assessment. Could you assess this? TriNitrobrick (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- The article Hollywood Heights, Los Angeles was rated as Start-Class in 2013 but has had numerous updates since then. Please assess and update its rating. Thank you. Samp4ngeles
- Yesterday I made an article named KAB-500S-E. Could anyone assess this?TriNitrobrick (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Some time ago I created the page Highland and Island Emigration Society and was disappointed with its rating of Start. Having read the description of Start class, I don't think that rating is appropriate. At the very least, I believe that the bibliography is exhaustive on the subject. Could I request a new assessment? Camerojo (talk) 11:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
- I've made significant additions and improvements to the page neutral particle oscillation. It's currently a start class article. Kindly assess and update its quality rating. Thank you. — Soham92 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- knol is assessed as "starter" class, shouldn't it be higher in its current quality?
- I have edited the page on Fock state to a significant level. It is now a Start class article. Please assess and update its rating. Thank you. Indranil1993 (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've made numerous updates to the Combat Zone, Boston article and would like to upgrade its rating to C-Class, but would like a second opinion. --Rosekelleher (talk) 21:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
- I significantly expanded the Sarah Wildes (Salem witch trials) article. - Dunc0029 (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- I significantly expanded and improved the structure of the Molly house article, I would like to see its rating updated accordingly. Thank you.Pbord (talk) 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I have made significant additions and improvements to the page Native American flute. It is currently a C class article. I am hoping to get an updated assessment of its quality rating. Thank you! — ClintGoss (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have updated Tullio DeSantis article and made improvements. Please assess and update its rating. Thank you! Thisandthem (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have made significant improvements to the Dubai International Academy article (previous version by the last contributor having been rated as Stub class), and was hoping to have it assessed again. Regards, VB00 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I would like a reassessment for the article Ashaly P Joy. Regards
- I have extensively edited the Chemin de fer de Petite Ceinture, and a bit of advice about attaining WP:GA/WP:FA would be welcome, too, as I am still working on improving the article. Thank you. THEPROMENADER ✎ ✓ 12:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- There are substantial improvements to Joseph "Diamond Jo" Reynolds which warrant a reassessment for the article. It is currently rated as stub-class. Thanks, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, I have substantially expanded the David Feldman (lawyer) page, and would be grateful if you would re-assess its rating. Thank you! Arjun Dhar (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- At nearly 10k bytes and growing, the article on Aaron Traywick might be ready to remove the stub tag and be considered a start-class article. Please evaluate to assess. Thank you, ー「宜しく 」 クロノ カム 05:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
- Requesting an updated assessment for the articles List of LTE networks, List of LTE networks in Europe and List of LTE networks in Asia following intensive contributions and efforts to improve the quality of the provided content with respect to WP:VER and WP:CS since the last review. Also some feedback and suggestions would be very helpful for further improvements. Thx in advance. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hello. I've recently upgraded and improved several articles regarding Papua New Guinea association football, with more to come. For now, I'd love the following pages to be re-assessed: Hekari United, Morobe F.C., Madang F.C., Gelle Hills United, Welgris Highlanders, Papua New Guinea National Soccer League, Papua New Guinea National Premier League, 2006 Papua New Guinea National Soccer League, 2007-08 Papua New Guinea National Soccer League, Rapatona F.C., Besta Madang Fighters, and the new page University Inter F.C.. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 19:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- I translated Serve the People (Norway) from the original Norwegian article and added a little more content. It was formerly a stub, and I think it may qualify for un-stubbing. It still needs some minor improvements (notably fixing the formatting of citations, translating source titles from Norwegian, correcting dates, etc.), but it's more or less been bumped up from the stub category, IMO. Would be grateful for a re-assessment. Thanks! AndersLeo (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, I substantially expanded the article All My Babies, and think the edits warrant a reassessment. It's currently rated as a stub-class. 9H48F (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
BushraSh (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) A coalition of contributers edited the Persepolis (comics) article. We think the edits and new contributions warrant a new assessment of the article and its quality. Thank you! BushraSh (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
- The list of articles are showing unknown assessment. Requesting for valid assessment... Thanks Farooqahmadbhat (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- Sylvia Massy has had considerable amount of information added. Not sure when it was assessed but it's definitely not starter anymore. Actaudio (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't made changes to the Obscurantism article, but it struck me as very informative, well-written and there are no apparent edit wars in the history log. It's been c-class since 2009 from what I've found. My initial thought was that this article should be nominated as a good article, but that's the first time I request an assessment for an article, so a simple improvement from C to B would be nice anyway. I would personally support a good article nomination nevertheless. MonsieurD (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- I did a lot of work to try and improve this Toy Biz article like removing promotional language and adding sources. I'm curious if it's worth reassessment. Issues still remain (I'm working on fixing the source problem), but think it's beyond Start Class at this point. Balle010 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
- I have been working to improve The Japanese House, and would eventually like to get it to GA status but for now I would like it to be reassessed so I can see where to improve it. It was previously a stub, but there is still a bit more work to be done. IphisOfCrete (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Significant improvements have been made to Cecogram since its initial assessment in October 2019. These include new media, expanded research, and improved writing that adheres to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Illinois347 (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
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.
September 16, 2024
Removed
- Draft:List of Wikimedia Foundation projects (talk) removed.
September 14, 2024
Assessed
- Category:Wikipedia beat reporters (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
September 11, 2024
Removed
- Draft:Gaurav Burman (talk) removed.
September 10, 2024
Assessed
- Draft:Gaurav Burman (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)