Wikipedia:WikiProject Inheritance Cycle/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed

Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Inheritance Trilogy 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 recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Wpinheritance}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Inheritance Trilogy articles by quality and Category:Inheritance Trilogy articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.


Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{Wpinheritance}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Inheritance Trilogy WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!

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


An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Wpinheritance}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Wpinheritance| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Inheritance Trilogy articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

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 importance scale below.

Quality scale[edit]

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Examples
Featured article FA
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. India (as of July 6 2006)
A-Class article A
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Emu, Sydney
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. Eric Bana, Uluru
Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. Boomerang.
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. Jimmy Barnes
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)
The article does not exist and needs to be created.      

Importance scale[edit]

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".

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Importance standards[edit]

Requesting an assessment[edit]

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.

Example assessments[edit]

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.


  • {{Wpinheritance|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{Wpinheritance|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{Wpinheritance|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{Wpinheritance|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{Wpinheritance|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{Wpinheritance|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{Wpinheritance}} - to leave the article un-assessed.


  • {{Wpinheritance|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{Wpinheritance|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{Wpinheritance|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{Wpinheritance|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance

Article Assessments[edit]

Collaboration Dashboard
This box: viewtalkedit
Featured Article Candidates none at the moment
Featured List Candidates none at the moment
Featured Picture Candidates none at the moment
Featured Article Removal Candidates none at the moment
Featured List Removal Candidates none at the moment
Peer Review none at the moment
Good article nominees none at the moment
Version 1.0 Editorial Team Assessment
Article requests Requests
Inheritance-related Articles For Deletion none at the moment
Inheritance-related Factual Accuracy Disputes none at the moment
Inheritance-related Neutrality Disputes none at the moment
Inheritance categories Category:Inheritance CycleCategory:Inheritance Cycle characters

Battle of Burning Plains[edit]

I think this is atleast a B-class. I think I'm gonna put it up for GA-class. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 21:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


This is obviously better than B-class. What should it be rated? I don't want to nominate it for GA, but I know it's not quite A-class. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 15:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on the summary and character sections on MS-Word. When I'm done, it'll hopefully be near FA standard. Till then try to nominate for GA.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 18:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I've been told that it's not the best idea to nominate an article for GA while under peer review. So, maybe we should just wait. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 19:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Eragon (video game) (yes, again)[edit]

I've spent a good few hours working on this article and I'd like to hear what you think has become of it and what needs to be done to improve it further. UnaLaguna 21:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This article has come a long way since I started editing it. It now has some more references, a few extra sections and is slightly longer. It's by no means perfect. I'm going to take a break from editing this article and work on the article of a game which I actually own. I suspect it hasn't made it to B-class, but what's the harm in adding it here? UnaLaguna 06:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessment log (updated by bot)[edit]