Wikipedia:Content assessment
| This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. |
| It has been suggested that Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ be merged into this page. (Discuss) Proposed since June 2018. |
The following system is used by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for assessing how close we are to a distribution-quality article on a particular topic. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though language quality and layout are also factors. Once an article reaches the A-Class
, it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made.
The quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles. These tags are then collected by a bot, which generates output such as a log and statistics. For more information, see Using the bot. (Note that when more than one WikiProject has rated an article, the bot will take the best rating as the rating of the overall article.) The WP:1.0 team is now setting up to use a second bot to select articles, based on the assessments performed by WikiProjects.
Two levels, GA (Good Article) and FA (Featured Article), are assessments made by independent editors, rather than by WikiProjects. GAs are generally reviewed by a single editor, and FA by a panel. Candidates are nominated by listing them at WP:Good article nominations and WP:Featured article candidates. Judgments are made according to the criteria at WP:Good article criteria and WP:Featured article criteria, and the results are listed at WP:Good articles and WP:Featured articles.
It is vital that editors not take these assessments of their contributions personally. It is understood that we each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. More active WikiProjects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment.
At present this assessment system is in use in the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and in several hundred WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. As of May 2017, over 5.1 million articles have been assessed. Several other languages are also using this assessment system or a derivative thereof.
Contents
Grades[edit]
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
|
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) |
|
| 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) |
|
| 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—
|
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:
|
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) |
| The article has attained featured list status. 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. | 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) |
Note: Some WikiProjects omit some of the standard classes, most often A-class, especially when they lack an assessment team.
Non-standard grades[edit]
Some WikiProjects use a few other assessments for the main namespace that do not fit into the scale. The more popular assessments, in no particular order:
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Future {{Future-Class}} |
A topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic of which no broadcasted version exists so far and all information is subject to change when new information arises from reliable sources. With multiple reliable sources there might be information that contradicts other information in the same or other articles. | Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event draws near. | Material added might be speculation and should be carefully sourced. | Preston City Council election, 2014 (as of September 2013) |
| Current {{Current-Class}} |
A topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers an event or topic that is currently going on, such as a football game or a sports team's season. | Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event goes on. | Material added might quickly become obsolete. | 2017 Atlantic hurricane season (as of June 2017) |
| Disambig {{Disambig-Class}} |
Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | The page directs the reader to other pages of the same title. | Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. | Aa River (as of June 2008) |
| NA {{NA-Class}} |
Any non-article page that does not fit into any other category. | The page does not have article content. | May or may not apply, depending on the type of page. | any WikiProject's internal resources |
| Redirect {{Redirect-Class}} |
Any redirect falls under this class. | Collapse Into Now | ||
| Book {{Book-Class}} |
Any Wikipedia book falls under this class. | Book:Canada | ||
| Template {{Template-Class}} |
Any template falls under this class. | Template:Magnapop | ||
| Category {{Category-Class}} |
Any category falls under this class. | Category:George Orwell | ||
| Draft {{Draft-Class}} |
Any draft falls under this class. | Draft:Example |
Some WikiProjects use additional grades not listed above, such as those used at WP:Comics. Most common are "Image" and "Needed". See the relevant Assessment page for the WikiProject, at Category:WikiProject assessments.
Evolution of an article – an example[edit]
This clickable imagemap, using the article "Atom" as an example, demonstrates the typical profile for an article's development through the levels. Hold the mouse over a number to see key events, and click on a number to see that version of the article. Please note that until 2008, a C-class rating did not exist on the project, and as such this grading is retroactive. Also, in 2006 references were much less used, and inline references were quite rare; a barely-B-Class article today would typically have many more references than this article did in late 2006.
However, not all articles end up at Featured Article. The Isaac Newton article (as of October 2nd 2014) is an example. On July 2014, the article was at B-class, but because of better development, this article reached Good-article-class.
Importance assessment[edit]
There is a separate scale for rating articles for importance or priority, which is unrelated to the quality scale outlined here. Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope. See also a template at {{Importance scheme}}.
Statistics[edit]
The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.
The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See also[edit]
- Wikipedia:Article assessment, the previous version superseded by this version.
- Wikipedia:Assessing articles, an essay on the criteria and purpose of article assessments
- Wikipedia:Metadata gadget, a script (and gadget) that finds articles' assessment information from the talk page and puts it in the article's header.
- User:Kephir/gadgets/rater, a script for tagging articles' talk pages with assessment information
- User:N8wilson/AQFetcher, a script that stylizes links on Wikipedia according to the assessed quality of the target article.
- mw:Article feedback, an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to engage Wikimedia readers in the assessment of article quality, one of the five priorities defined in the strategic plan
- Wikipedia:Data mining Wikipedia, a potential use of WikiProject assessments
