Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/Assessment

Assessment · Collaboration · Review · Outreach · Task forces

WikiProject Technology

Project navigation

• Assessment
• Collaboration

Review

• Featured article candidates
• Good article candidates

Assessment

• Assessment template
• Quality scale
• Good article criteria
• Featured article criteria

Portals

• Technology

Notable areas

• Basic technology topics
• Technology topics
• Technology overviews
• Technology academia
• Technology glossary
• Technology portals
• History categories

The Assessment department finds technological articles and rate them on Quality scale.

The articles are rated by examining them and comparing them to the Quality scale. A template is then place on the article's talk page stating that the article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology and displaying what rating the article has been given when compared to the Quality scale.

Requests for assessment

• Éolienne Bollée
• Rosalind Picard
• Video in print
• UE Boom
• Error concealment
• Prusa i3
• Ethernet
• Stereolithography

Technological articles can be found in Category:Technology and its subcategories

Template

• {{WikiProject Technology}}

Quality scale

Featured articles

Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review

Featured articles are selected at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

A-Class

Reserved for articles that have received A-Class status after review by the project. Such articles are expected to largely meet the featured article criteria, and must be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written.

A-Class articles are selected by the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review#A-Class Review.

Good articles

Reserved for articles that meet the good article criteria and have received good article status.

Good articles are selected at Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

B-Class

The article meets the following six criteria:

1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
6. It is written from a neutral point of view

Start Class

Start class article have a few paragraphs that provide all the key points but may not cover all aspects of the subject. These articles usually have an image or infobox to support the text.

Start-class articles are selected by individual assessors.

Stub Class

Stubs are very short articles which offer a quick description of the subject

Stub articles are selected by individual assessors

Simplified 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 our 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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. 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. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.	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)
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 has attained good article status having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is— Well written: the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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.	Discovery of the neutron (as of December 2017)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: 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. 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. 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. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, 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.	The Hague (as of June 2018)
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. 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; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.	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 which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	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.	Ring-tailed cardinalfish (as of June 2018)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.	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.	Crescent Falls (as of June 2018)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly 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.	List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018)
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.	List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947 (as of June 2018)

Statistics

Current status

Technology pages by quality
Quality	Total pages
FA	10
FL	2
GA	37
B	146
C	1,646
Start	2,574
Stub	1,217
List	155
Book	4
Category	1,573
Disambig	21
File	20
Portal	6
Project	11
Redirect	227
Template	76
NA	8
Assessed	7,733
Unassessed	819
Total	8,552
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 7004273390000000000♠27,339			Ω = 4.84

October 8, 2018

Assessed

• Matrix (protocol) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).

Removed

• Matrix (communication protocol) (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t).
• Peugeot X80 Series (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t).

October 7, 2018

Reassessed

• AMX Mouse (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Tinno Mobile (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t).
• File:HPSLamp.png (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as File-Class (rev · t).
• File:Jet engine.svg (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as File-Class (rev · t).

October 6, 2018

Reassessed

• GAZ 3307/3309 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Automatic milking (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t).
• Mixer-wagon (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Pocket mask (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).

October 5, 2018

Reassessed

• Front engine dragster (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to Unassessed-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Beat (app) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t).
• Category:Fiction about size change (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class (rev · t).

Removed

• Beat (company) (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t).
• Category:Size change in fiction (talk) removed. Quality rating was Category-Class (rev · t).

October 4, 2018

Assessed

• Beat (company) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t).
• Drive.ai (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t).
• Duane Gish (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t).
• Category:Energy harvesting (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class (rev · t).
• Category:Power station technology (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class (rev · t).

October 3, 2018

Reassessed

• Artificial empathy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Shear vane (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t).

October 2, 2018

Reassessed

• Consumer IR (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
• Jerrold Electronics (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Edward Rebar (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Sangamo Therapeutics (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Super black (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Vertically aligned carbon nanotube arrays (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t).
• Category:Institution of Engineering and Technology (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class (rev · t).

October 1, 2018

Removed

• LeewayHertz (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t).
• Responsible Research and Innovation (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t).

September 30, 2018

Assessed

• IndieCade (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).

Removed

• Indiecade (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t).
• Science and technology/Archive 1 (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t).

September 29, 2018

Assessed

• Science and technology/Archive 1 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t).

September 28, 2018

Reassessed

• Drivetrain (disambiguation) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Disambig-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Film scanner (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Jerrold Electronics (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t).

Removed

• Pallet (talk) removed. Quality rating was C-Class (rev · t).

September 27, 2018

Reassessed

• Institute of Wood Science (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Compactor (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Pellet fuel (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t).
• Pellet mill (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).

September 26, 2018

Reassessed

• Ford CHT engine (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Endless tape cartridge (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).

September 25, 2018

Assessed

• Julia Angwin (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).

September 24, 2018

Assessed

• Floating landing platform (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• How-To Geek (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t).
• Instant payment (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• List of the largest technology companies (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as List-Class (rev · t).

September 23, 2018

Assessed

• 21st Century Medicine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Consumer IR (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t).
• International Conference on Technology in Collegiate Mathematics (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t).

September 22, 2018

Assessed

• Displacement receiver (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t).

September 21, 2018

Reassessed

• Nanotube (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Redirect-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Cellular V2X (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).

September 20, 2018

Assessed

• Equipment (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t).

September 19, 2018

Renamed

• 3D scanner renamed to 3D scanning.

Reassessed

• Gas stove (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
• Hackle (wig making) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• 3D scanning (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t).
• Christmas tree (drag racing) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Silicon Hills (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t).
• Category:Screen readers (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class (rev · t).

September 18, 2018

Reassessed

• Besom (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
• Candle snuffer (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
• D-ring (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
• Hackle (wig making) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Unassessed-Class (rev · t).
• Lid (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
• Quick connect fitting (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Sports Technology Awards (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t).

September 17, 2018

Reassessed

• Hackle (wig making) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Category:Industry in ancient Rome (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class (rev · t).

Removed

• Category:Industry in Ancient Rome (talk) removed. Quality rating was Category-Class (rev · t).

September 16, 2018

Reassessed

• Automatic balancing valve (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).
• Hackle (wig making) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Unassessed-Class (rev · t).
• IPod Touch (4th Generation) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Redirect-Class (rev · t).
• Worlds Fair Nano (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed

• Template:List of pipeline accidents in the United States (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class (rev · t).

Requests for 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.

• VHS - Please assess this article for "B" grade. I've made some significant additions and changes. I think the article fulfills the criteria as a "B" article. Thank you! Groink (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Millenniata - Please assess this article for "B" grade. I rewrote it as NPoV. I believe the company itself is only notable for the M-DISC technology (a type of specialty DVD-R), but I'm not sure of the best way to handle that. Advice appreciated! —Hobart (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
• I noticed that in Talk:Fucking Machines that this unfortunate article has a Good Article status from this WikiProject. This status needs to be reconsidered and likely removed. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)