Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ
- What is the purpose of article assessments?
- The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
- Are these ratings official?
- Not really; these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
- Who can assess articles?
- In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, assessing an article as "A-Class" generally requires the agreement of at least two editors, and the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes.
- How do I assess an article?
- Consult the quality scale below; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use
|class=Bin the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless they are currently designated as such.
- Does this have anything to do with the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool, which used to appear at the end of many articles?
- No, that was a completely separate system.
- Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject'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 article's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging for more information.
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
- 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!
- Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
- 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. Wikipedia:Peer review is the process designed to provide detailed comments.
|Class||Criteria||Reader's experience||Editing suggestions||Example|
|FA||The article has attained featured article status by passing an official review.
|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.||
(as of August 2014)
|A||The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
|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. Peer review may help.||
(as of June 2014)
|GA||The article has attained good article status by passing an official review.
|Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.||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.||
(as of August 2014)
|B||The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|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.||
(as of October 2017)
|C||The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
|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.||
(as of August 2014)
|Start||An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources.
|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.||
(as of February 2014)
|Stub||A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.
|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.||
(as of February 2013)
|FL||The article has attained featured list status.
|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.||
(as of April 2014)
|List||Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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.||
(as of January 2013)
A few WikiProjects have similar FAQs that address issues more specific to their particular assessment programs:
Links for WikiProject members looking to implement assessments:
- The WikiProject Council Guide to article assessments
- Wikipedia 1.0 Subject index (produced by a bot)
- How to use the bot
- User:N8wilson/AQFetcher, a script that stylizes links according to the assessed quality of the target article.