User:X!/Adoption/Reviewing Articles
Reviewing Articles
Another skill editors should know is how to review an article. It's not something overly useful, but it's still good to know. Wikipedia grades, or "assesses" its articles on a scale according to how much information they provide and how well. This assessment scale is largely unofficial, with the majority of assessments made by WikiProjects who claim jurisdiction over the articles. There are, however, two official ratings which are given to those articles which are nominated by editors and reviewed to see if they meet a series of criteria. The full ranking is as follows:
| Class | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
 FA
|
WP:FAC after discussion of several editors.
|
Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America) (As of August 22, 2007; promoted June 23, 2006)
|
| A | A-Class articles are considered "completed," although edits will obviously continue to be made. They provide a wide range of neutrally presented information that is well sourced and shows a wide background of sources. Articles at this stage should be sent to Peer Review for further improvement and preparation for an FA nomination. Note: An article need not have been listed as a "Good Article" to reach A-Class
|
Albert Einstein (As of August 22, 2007; promoted to FA January 13, 2005; demoted November 16, 2007) |
 GA
|
WP:GAC and then reviewed by a single editor for GA status.
|
Elephant (As of August 22, 2007; listed April 5, 2006) |
| B | B-Class articles have most of the information needed for a comprehensive article, but are lacking one or more key points. It is useful for general purposes, but not for in-depth research on the subject. It may have problems with editing, neutrality, copyright, or verification. | A Midsummer Night's Dream (As of August 22, 2007) |
| Start | Start-Class articles are, as the name implies, just getting started. They have a meaningful amount of content, but lack large areas of information about a topic, possibly even key areas, and may have several problems with neutrality, verification, and/or copyright. They are in need of expansion and someone researching that topic would definitely need other sources. | Ubiquitous computing (As of August 22, 2007) |
| Stub | Stubs are very short articles that, at most, provide simplistic background information about a subject. They may be useful to someone who didn't know what the subject was previously, but otherwise don't give much help. Articles shorter than this may be at risk of deletion under CSD A1 or A3. | Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park (As of August 22, 2007) |
Other types of pages are graded outside this criteria. Lists are no more than that, long lists of topics that all relate to the main theme of the list. Lists don't provide any prose, and any references are there simply to confirm that the topic does meet the criteria for inclusion. Each list must provide a specific criteria for what is considered a member of that list. Usually this is clear in the title, such as in
Disambiguation pages are designed to help people find the right article. Some topics share names with other topics, leading to confusion. For example, if you were to search for George Washington, you're probably looking for
The assignment
Now that you've seen the different kinds of articles, take a look at some of these and tell me what you think they should be graded as. Don't look at the talk pages, just read the article and give it your own assessment. Give a short reasoning of why you have graded it such. If you believe an article does not meet the requirements of any level, mark it as a "sub-stub". Once you have done that, leave me a message on my