Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment

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

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[edit]

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[edit]

Quality assessments[edit]

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:Quality scale for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Wikipedia articles) Featured article FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Wikipedia articles) A-Class article 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-Class article B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Wikipedia articles) C-Class article C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Wikipedia articles) Start-Class article Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Wikipedia articles) Stub-Class article Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Wikipedia articles) Featured list FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Wikipedia articles)  List 

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Book (for Wikipedia books; adds pages to Category:Book-Class Wikipedia articles) Wikipedia Book Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Wikipedia articles) Category page Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Wikipedia articles) Disambiguation page 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 
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Wikipedia articles) Redirect page Redirect 
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 
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[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance assessment[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Wikipedia|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project:

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)  ??? 

The importance parameter should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

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" 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.

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.

  • 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 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)
  • 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.
  • 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 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
  • 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)
  • 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)

  • 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[edit]

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.

February 17, 2020[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

February 16, 2020[edit]

Assessed[edit]

February 15, 2020[edit]

Removed[edit]

February 14, 2020[edit]

Removed[edit]

February 13, 2020[edit]

Assessed[edit]