Wikipedia:Content assessment

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The following system is used to assess the quality of a Wikipedia article. The system is based on a letter scheme that reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though

layout
are also factors.

The quality assessments are mainly performed by Wikipedia editors, who tag Talk pages of articles;

project-independent quality assessments
were introduced, so editors only have to rate an article once and it applies to all associated projects.

Most grades are assessed by individual editors according to the criteria on this page. Generally speaking, all editors, including editors who have written or improved an article, are encouraged to

boldly set any quality rating that they believe is appropriate, except for the GA, FA, and A-class ratings. GAs (Good Articles) are generally reviewed by a single independent editor after a nomination at WP:Good article nominations. FAs (Featured Articles) are reviewed by several editors at WP:Featured article candidates. Be aware that a few projects have opted out of the standard quality scale, and use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment
.

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. If there is disagreement over the quality rating of an article, then it should be discussed on the article's talk page.

As of November 2022, over seven million articles have been assessed. Several other languages are also using this assessment system or a derivative thereof.

Grades

Note: Some WikiProjects omit some of the standard classes, most often A-Class, especially when they lack an assessment team.

Non-standard grades

Some WikiProjects use other assessments for mainspace content that do not fit into the above scale:

Other WikiProject assessments
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
Future A topic for which details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic, e.g., a forthcoming election or album release, and article content may change as new information arises. Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event draws near. Material added might be speculative and should be carefully sourced. Next United Kingdom general election (as of October 2019)
SIA Any set index article (SIA) page falls under this class. These are List articles about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. The page lists related items of the same name. An SIA need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages USS Yorktown (as of May 2018)
Disambig 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. Jackson (as of August 2019)
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page does not display any article content and redirects to a related topic. Ensure that the redirect is appropriately categorized. American breakfast (as of October 2016)
Needed May be used to identify redirects that could be expanded into articles, or articles with content that could be split off to form a new page. Content may not yet exist for the desired topic. Editors are encouraged to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Free City of Mainz (as of March 2018)
NA A page that does not fit into any other category. Used as a "catch-all" by all WikiProjects. Depends on the type of page. Depends on the type of page. N/A

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment which utilises a parallel scheme of "CL-Class", "BL-Class" and "AL-Class" for list articles.

Non-mainspace content

Further grades are commonly used by WikiProjects to categorize relevant pages in other namespaces. The precise application of these grades may vary depending on their usage by individual WikiProjects.

Non-mainspace assessments
Label Criteria Example
Category Any category falls under this class. Category:George Orwell
Draft Any draft falls under this class. These are typically found in the Draft namespace, but may also be in the User namespace. Draft:Example
File Any file falls under this class; may also include timed text pages. File:Flag of Australia.svg
FM Any file which has attained featured picture or featured sound status. File:Felis silvestris silvestris.jpg
Portal Any portal falls under this class. Portal:Biography
Project Any project page falls under this class; may also include help pages. Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan
Template Any template falls under this class; may also include modules or userboxes. Template:Magnapop
User Any user page falls under this class. User:Legoktm/afcnew.js

Note that some WikiProjects deal exclusively with non-mainspace content and may use their own customised assessment schemes tailored to a specific purpose: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Assessment for one such example.

For an index of all WikiProject assessment pages, see Category:WikiProject assessments.

Evolution of an article – an example

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.

The article was a Stub when its earliest surviving edit was made on 1 Oct 2001.By 8 Dec 2001, it approached the upper bound of a Stub.On 20 Sep 2002, more useful content was added and it became Start.3 Jun 2004, Start; meaningful amount of information, but more structuring is needed.24 Jun 2004, a useful image is added; now it is at the upper bound of Start.On 18 Sep 2004, some sections have expanded and it just reaches C-Class.By 31 Aug 2005 it has been expanded, but needs refs; it can be comfortably called C-Class.12 Dec 2005, enough content and structure for a respectable article. In spite of its lack of in-line citations, the article is approaching the upper limit of C-Class. If it were properly referenced, we could have considered rating it B-Class.By 19 Aug 2006, several new images and contents from a cited book have been added; just makes B-Class.By 23 Mar 2007, new content and refs have been added; easily B-Class.17 Oct 2007, nominated for a Peer Review.Review closes on 9 Feb 2008, after addressing MoS / inline cite issues; becomes A-Class.10 Feb 2008, nominated and listed as GA.12 Feb 2008, FAC; promoted to FA 18 Feb.

Importance assessment

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 the template {{importance scheme}}.

Statistics

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.

FAQ

Purpose

What is the purpose of article assessments?
The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the
Wikipedia 1.0 program
to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
Are these ratings official?
Not really; these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.

Assessing articles

Who can assess articles?
In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, assessing an article as
"A-Class" generally requires the agreement of at least two editors, and the "GA" and "FA" labels should be used only on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles
, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes.
How do I assess an article?
Consult the quality scale above; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, go to the article's talk page and set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use |class=B in the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless they are currently designated as such. Tools in the See also section can help with the assessment process.
How can I ask for an article to be assessed?
To have an independent editor review an article, post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Requesting an assessment.

Common concerns

Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject'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 article's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article tagging for more information.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
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!
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
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. Wikipedia:Peer review is the process designed to provide detailed comments.

See also