Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Elections and Referendums! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to elections and referendums. The article ratings are used within the project itself to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} project banner.

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

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.

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. Alternatively, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of the Elections and Referendums WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.

If you have any other questions that are not listed here, feel free to ask them at the talk page.

You can assess an article by placing the {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} banner on its talk page (not the article page) and using the two parameters, class (to assess the quality) and importance (to assess the priority) (if you are doubtful just leave one of these blank).

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}} project banner on its talk page:

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Elections and Referendums articles)		List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

• v
• t
• e

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 Wikipedia's 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; 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; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. 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 footnotes—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 where appropriate.	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.[under discussion]	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. 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) statements are four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations . (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for 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, colour ; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has are labeled accordingly . (c) Accessibility. It alternative (alt) text . 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)
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 meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the 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 ; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or 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 audio : media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free 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 (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.	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 April 2019)
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed 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, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an 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.	Psychology (as of January 2024)
C	The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains 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, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.	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 still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	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.	Ball (as of September 2014)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	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.	Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 literary movements

Priority assessment

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

{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top
• High
• Mid
• Low
• Unknown - Any article not rated for importance.

Priority scale

Requesting an 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.

Requested assessments

• 2022 AJK local government elections - Looking for B or higher. Its almost complete more than 95%. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Social media in the 2020 United States presidential election - Looking for a C , have significantly expanded since receiving 'Start' class. Giraffer (munch) 14:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Giraffer:  Done Gazamp (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 1992 Montenegrin independence referendum I've greatly expanded the article, currently assessed as Start class. --Aleksamil (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aleksamil:  Done Gazamp (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 2021 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council election, hoping for an upgrade from stub --james_mc (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jamesmc56:  Done - A really well put together page, well done for your work on it. One suggestion just from a reader's POV: it might be useful to have a composition template similar to the one at 2021 Cornwall Council election#Council composition to show more clearly the difference the election made to the overall council composition. Gazamp (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign I have created the article last month and hoping it to be assessed as a B grade article from unassessed. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done - It was done within few hours by a user.Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 2000 Taiwanese presidential election - I have added sources by and large (and will continue to do so) over the past few days -- mainly the article was unsourced. I'd like a second opinion. Not aiming for any particular rating, though. If you have any suggestions feel free to elaborate on them in your reply. Also, I would like an opinion on whether the citation maintenance tag is still needed. Thanks! --Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Duonaut:  Done - I've re-rated it at C class, but I feel like it's almost B. The referencing is largely great, but I've added citation needed templates to what doesn't seem to be attributed - I might have been a bit overzealous, but there are definitely some key parts which should have a source (it might be that chunks of text which I've tagged are referenced with one source at the end of the paragraph or something, in which case just ignore and remove the tag).

I also took out a few clauses which didn't seem NPOV and were unreferenced. Final point, in the table of county and city vote tallies using bolding to show the winner, rather than red text, is best (per

MOS:COLOUR). If you make these few tweaks, then I don't see why it shouldn't be a B class article (and probably higher, but I don't have much experience there). This a really great page now so well done and thank you for all your work on it! Let me know if anything wasn't clear or I've missed something, Gazamp (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• 2020 United States redistricting cycle - Much better than 'Start' but I don't know where exactly to place it Phoenix1494 (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Phoenix1494:  Done - have re-rated at C class, but again IMO it's probably almost a B. The only criterion I don't think it quite meets is the citation one: there are a few paragraphs which don't have clear references, notably the first paragraph in the 'Reapportionment' section, the Ohio paragraph in the 'Congressional redistricting plans passed by commissions', the first paragraph of the 'Court run redistricting' section (the last three states mentioned don't seem to have any citations to the fact), and the Ohio paragraph in 'State court rulings'. I'll add citation needed tags where I mean so it's easy to find. Thanks for your work on the article, and let me know if there's anything that I've missed. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 2022 Marikina local elections - I have made a lot of edits that went against tradition and I would like to know if they were actually beneficial to the development of the article. EdrianJustine (talk)
  • @EdrianJustine: I've rated it at C class. Overall, I think the article looks in good shape. Some parts could do with more citations in my opinion - my rule of thumb is that anything that isn't obvious to someone who is completely new to the topic needs a reference. Also, because candidates won by large margins the vote share maps are all one shade, and at least one of these would have differentiation if the vote share boundaries were increased (i.e. instead of going 40% > 50% > 60% it could go 60% > 70% > 80%) - there might be a reason this hasn't been done, in which case ignore me! As well, the results per district map is hard to read - perhaps a better format would be something more like the map at 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom. Thanks for your work on the page, it's really paying off! Best, Gazamp (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elections and Referendums pages by quality
Quality
	Total
FA	38
FL	21
GA	146
B	1,297
C	5,626
Start	26,698
Stub	30,012
List	6,912
Category	26,696
Disambig	209
File	390
Project	13
Redirect	5,610
Template	10,374
Assessed	114,042
Unassessed	5,278
Total	119,320
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 340,249			Ω = 5.33