|Music theory articles by quality and importance|
|WikiWork factors (?)||ω = 5,432||Ω = 4.94|
|Label||Criteria||Reader's experience||Editor's experience||Examples|
|Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "
peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.
|Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.||No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light.||(Olivier Messiaen)|
|Reserved for articles that have received "Featured list" status.||Comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information.||No further editing necessary, unless there is new published information.||(Kronos Quartet discography)|
|Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the subject, as described in
featured articlestatus, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Scholarly analysis of the topic is aptly summarised. Inline citations are essential.
|Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.||Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.||Interval (music)|
|The article has passed through the
Good articleis not a requirement for A-Class.
|Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.||Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.||(Karlheinz Stockhausen)|
|Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Such articles should be
original research. If free images are used, this is a bonus. The article references reliable sources (such as Grove), possibly using inline citations.
|Useful to many, but not all, readers.||Expansion is still needed, usually scholarly analysis being the lacking element.||Absolute pitch, Consonance and dissonance|
|The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.||The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements.||Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.||E-flat major|
|Start-Class articles should contain a decent level of contextual information (including a modicum of criticism).||The article could contain more information, but most will find it moderately useful.||Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built.||Deutsch's scale illusion|
|Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list. An article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.||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 atonal compositions|
|The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.||Minimally useful. Provides a basic introduction.||Any editing or additional material can be helpful.||Padhant|