Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Importance ratings
| Main | Talk | Astronomical objects (Talk) | Eclipses (Talk) | Article ratings | Image review | Popular pages | Members | Wikidata |
These are the Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy guidelines for ranking article importance. The rankings can be added to an astronomy-related article using the {{WikiProject Astronomy}} template. See Category:Astronomy articles by importance and Category:Astronomy articles by quality for the current article rankings.
Importance scale
[edit]Articles that are given a {{WikiProject Astronomy}} template are graded by importance based on their overall significance to the academic field of astronomy.
- Fundamental astronomy topics are typically given a higher importance rating than secondary topics or minutiae.
- Subjects that are the target of dedicated study by professional astronomers, as indicated by major observatory studies and scholarly journal articles, are generally of higher importance.
- Widely known and famous topics in astronomy, as judged by the frequency of introductory publications and news stories, will also have a higher importance, as they are more likely to be the subject of encyclopedic searches.
Here are some general guidelines for the individual ratings:
- Top: Fundamental and famous astronomy
- High: Important or famous. Something an undergraduate astronomy student could have heard of or studied.
- Mid: Items that people in the know have heard about, while not being over-specialized.
- Low: Everything else that has some significance to astronomy as a science, as well as amateur astronomy as a dedicated hobby.
- Bottom: Not of importance to scientific astronomy overall, such as weekly local stargazing columns, recreational software, works of fiction or artistic interpretations. It also includes junk astronomy that matters to rational scepticism, but which is otherwise crank.
- NA: Pages that are not articles, such as categories, redirects or projects.
These may vary somewhat depending on the subject category – see the specific guidelines below.
People
[edit]- Top: People who made fundamental, widely recognized, or famous contributions to astronomy.
- High: People who made major contributions within their field (often those with effects or concepts named after them). Inventors or developers of major techniques or technologies within astronomy. Winners of the Nobel prize for their research in astronomy. Researchers with a major body of scholarly publications, of great importance to their field.
- Examples: Henrietta Swan Leavitt, Fritz Zwicky, Andrea Ghez, Martin Rees
- Mid: Astronomers who made important contributions to their fields and gained recognition by their peers. Directors of major observatories or heads of space-based telescope projects. Winners of high-importance prizes. Academics with an extensive body of highly-cited peer-reviewed publications.
- Examples: Sandy Faber, Heinrich Olbers, David Southwood, Robert Kennicutt
- Low: Most professional astronomers who meet the minimum notability guidelines (see WP:PROF) and have published in respected peer-reviewed journals. Popularizers of astronomy and heads of planetariums. Notable amateur astronomers who have discovered important objects.
- Examples: Ian Shelton, Amanda Bauer, Tom Boles, Alice Everett
- Bottom: Fringe theorists, pseudo-scientists, artists, philanthropists etc. who are relevant to astronomy, but have not published scientific work in respected peer-reviewed astronomy journals.
- Examples: Luděk Pešek, Zecharia Sitchin, Ernest Sternglass
Topics
[edit]- Top: The Astronomy article, along with major divisions of the subject e.g. those listed on the top level of the outline of astronomy; topics of fundamental importance to astronomy.
- Examples: Astrophysics, Big Bang, Astrobiology
- High: Important topics of widespread interest in astronomy; major divisions of top-importance topics.
- Examples: Parallax, Stellar evolution, Amateur astronomy
- Mid: Subdivisions within astronomy; topics which may be taught to university students but are not otherwise widely known.
- Examples: Magnetosphere, Orbital resonance, Lagrange point
- Low: Specialist topics only of interest to a small field of researchers. Any subdivision of astronomy that meets the notability guidelines, has a scientific basis, and does not qualify for one of the higher importance ratings.
- Bottom: Pseudoscience or mythological topics whose articles include astronomical content, but have no scientific basis. This does not include serious scientific theories which were once considered correct, but are now obsolete.
- Examples: Astrology and science, Mars in fiction
Objects
[edit]Types
[edit]- Top: General-summary articles on primary classes of objects and important subtypes. These are extensively studied object types that provide information of fundamental importance to astronomy.
- Examples: Binary star, Black hole, Brown dwarf, Circumstellar disk, Galaxy, Globular cluster, Nova, Planet, Star, Supernova, Universe, White dwarf.
- High: Sub-types of general object classes that are readily observed or have a large body of literature.
- Examples: Hypergiant, Red giant, Supergiant, Type Ia supernova, Variable star.
- Mid: Classes of objects that have been the subject of individual scientific study beyond the basic properties.
- Low: Minor sub-classes of objects that are variants of broader classes. Hypothetical objects that have a credible scientific basis.
- Examples: Luminous red nova, CEMP star, Thorne–Żytkow object
- Bottom: Fictional or mythological types of object with a clear connection to astronomy, but that have no scientific basis.
Specific
[edit]- Top: Extensively studied objects that provide information of fundamental importance to astronomy. Renowned examples of primary types. This includes the planets in the Solar System.
- Examples: Asteroid belt, Cygnus X-1, Hyades (star cluster), Jupiter, Local Group, Milky Way, Sun.
- High: Readily observed or prototypical objects that have a large body of literature. This includes the major moons, dwarf planets, bright stars (1st magnitude or higher). Well known examples of primary types.
- Examples: Eagle Nebula, Makemake, Spica.
- Mid: Objects that have been the subject of substantial scientific study, with numerous publications devoted to them. This includes large asteroids, prominent stars (2nd & 3rd magnitude), well-studied extrasolar planets, widely-known astronomical features, nearby galaxies and unusual objects.
- Examples: Proxima Centauri, IK Pegasi.
- Low: Everything else, including most asteroids, stars, clusters and distant galaxies. These are objects that contribute little to the field and have not been widely studied.
- Examples: 101 Helena, 62 Andromedae, Vulcan (hypothetical planet)
- Bottom: Unconfirmed objects that were invented in fiction, UFOlogy, personal imagination, mysticism or mythology.
- Example: Counter-Earth, Nibiru cataclysm
Discoveries
[edit]- Top: Famous discoveries of major astronomical phenomena.
- High: General history of astronomy; important discoveries that are not widely known.
- Mid: Historical era or geographic sub-topics within the history of astronomy. Historical summaries of a culture.
- Examples: Copernican Revolution, Egyptian astronomy, Zodiac
- Low: Specialized topics important only within a culture.
- Examples: Sothic cycle
Events and time-domain astronomy
[edit]- Top: Astronomical events that are widely important both within and outside of astronomy.
- Examples: Halley's Comet
- High: Very important and widely observed events. Occurrences that demonstrated new astronomical concepts. Discoveries of entirely new classes of transient.
- Mid: Historically significant or rare events that were widely studied. Events that provided new sub-types or improved physical understanding of known transients.
- Examples: GRB 080319B, SN 2015L, Sakurai's Object
- Low: Real events that meet the notability guidelines, but are of little individual importance to astronomy. Specific routine events, such as unremarkable eclipses or supernovae.
- Examples: Solar eclipse of March 29, 2006, SN 2010lt
- Bottom: Astronomical events that are fictional, mythological or otherwise lack a scientific basis, but are still of relevance to the project.
- Examples: Comet vintages, Nibiru cataclysm, Wow! signal
Institutions
[edit]- Top: None
- High: Major or famous observatories or institutes, important international organizations.
- Mid: Historically significant observatories, specialist research observatories, national professional societies.
- Low: Private observatories that perform research, university/college observatories, national amateur astronomy groups. Professional research observatories that are under construction or otherwise not operating.
- Bottom: Small non-research observatories, local amateur societies, institutions with only a minor connection to astronomy.
Education
[edit]- Top: None
- High: Training principles.
- Examples: Astronomy education
- Mid: College-level courses, astronomy certifications, major astronomy conferences, reputable astronomy training institutes.
- Examples: European Association for Astronomy Education, Network for Astronomy School Education, National Standard Examination in Astronomy, Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, 'Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester'
- Low: Public education and outreach, special topic astronomy conferences, amateur astronomy associations, watch parties, astronomy museums, planetariums.
Prizes
[edit]- Top: The Nobel Prize in Physics
- High: World-renowned for a major discovery, or widely acknowledged as prestigious for a lifetime of achievement in astronomy. Top awards of major astronomical associations or international astronomical societies.
- Examples: Bruce Medal, Gold Medal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Henry Norris Russell Lectureship, Prix Jules Janssen.
- Medium: Prestigious professional awards for a particular subject or topic in astronomy.
- Low: Notable awards for popularizing or teaching astronomy. Minor awards and prize lectures from professional associations. Top awards from major non-professional societies.
- Bottom: Awards from local astronomy associations. Scholarships and fellowships. PhD thesis or poster presentation prizes. All other awards for astronomy that do not meet the above criteria.
- Examples: Robert J. Trumpler Award, Tyson Medal, Keith Runcorn Prize
Publications, catalogues and surveys
[edit]- Top: None
- High: Famous landmark publications, which had a major impact across astronomy.
- Examples: De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, Astronomia nova.
- Mid: High-impact astronomy journals. Books or papers famous enough to be known by their author(s) only to most of the astronomy community. Historically significant catalogues of astronomical objects.
- Low: Most astronomical catalogues and surveys. Astronomy magazines aimed at the general public or hobbyists. Most textbooks or popular science books on astronomy. Minor academic journals.
- Examples: Gliese catalogue, Astronomy Now, UKIRT Infrared Deep Sky Survey.
- Bottom: All other non-fiction publications which are of interest to astronomy. Pseudo-science or crank astronomy.
- Examples: Journal of Cosmology, Eureka: A Prose Poem
Equipment
[edit]- Top: Very important, fundamental and pioneering instrument types.
- Examples: astronomical interferometer, photometer, spectrograph, telescope.
- High: Important instrument types and sub-classifications of very important instrument types. Individual instruments that made landmark discoveries.
- Mid: Important instrument types within specialized fields, instrument variations, and historically-important instruments. Record-breaking instruments. Instruments that have made notable discoveries.
- Examples: blink comparator, coronagraph, filter (optics), meridian circle, Schmidt camera, spectroheliograph.
- Low: Obsolete and low importance instrument types. Minor instrument variations. Planned instruments that are not yet operational, or were cancelled before completion. Equipment for hobbyists and amateur astronomy.
- Examples: armillary sphere, reticle, Terrestrial Planet Finder.
- Bottom: Instruments that are used for celestial navigation, surveying, or time keeping.
- Examples: backstaff, Cranmer Park, copyscope.
Miscellaneous
[edit]- Top: none.
- High: fundamental or notable astronomy and astronomy-related topics, including major new techniques and models.
- Examples: Astrophotography, Astronomical naming conventions, Constellation.
- Mid: commonly used models, significant topics in popular astronomy.
- Low: relatively obscure but still notable topics.
- Examples: Great Diamond, half-month, Crab (unit)
- Bottom: trivia, cultural myths, documentary and educational programs, and pseudo-science topics.
Lists
[edit]- Top: Lists of "fundamental" astronomy information:
- Examples: Outline of astronomy
- High: High-level listings of widely observed objects.
- Mid: Lists of "important" stuff. Subtopics of high-level listings.
- Low: Lists of objects that (for the most part) have not been the object of significant study. Identification codes, lists of publications.
- Bottom: Lists of astronomy-related cultural elements, fiction, or trivia
Quality scale
[edit]| 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. | 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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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 |