Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/Assessment

WikiProject Technology

Project navigation

• Assessment
• Collaboration

Review

• Featured article candidates
• Good article candidates

Assessment

• Assessment template
• Quality scale
• Good article criteria
• Featured article criteria

Portals

• Technology

Notable areas

• Basic technology topics
• Technology topics
• Technology overviews
• Technology academia
• Technology glossary
• Technology portals
• History categories

The Assessment department finds technological articles and rate them on Quality scale.

The articles are rated by examining them and comparing them to the Quality scale. A template is then place on the article's talk page stating that the article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology and displaying what rating the article has been given when compared to the Quality scale.

• Éolienne Bollée
• Rosalind Picard
• UE Boom
• Error concealment
• Prusa i3
• Ethernet
• Stereolithography
• Incremental encoder -- please reassess due to major rewrite and content expansion
• OnePlus Nord
• Asus ZenFone 6
• Lorgnette -- please assess this stub, feel like it should be at least a start
• Nuclear weapon design -- I am uncertain what the procedure is in this project. Over on Military History I could just downgrade it myself, but I don't know what you project's rules are. Either way, the article may have been B-class when reviewed many years ago, but now it is a mess with 98 citation needed by my count today. It is also awkwardly structured. Over on the Military History project I am looking for other editors to help rewrite the whole thing.Kylesenior (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Cryogenic gas plant

Technological articles can be found in Category:Technology and its subcategories

• {{WikiProject Technology}}

Technology FA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review

Featured articles are selected at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

Reserved for articles that have received A-Class status after review by the project. Such articles are expected to largely meet the featured article criteria, and must be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written.

A-Class articles are selected by the project at Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review#A-Class Review.

Reserved for articles that meet the

Good articles are selected at Wikipedia:Good article nominations.

The article meets the following six criteria:

1. It is
   appropriately cited
   .
2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
6. It is written from a neutral point of view

Start class article have a few paragraphs that provide all the key points but may not cover all aspects of the subject. These articles usually have an image or infobox to support the text.

Start-class articles are selected by individual assessors.

Stubs are very short articles which offer a quick description of the subject

Stub articles are selected by individual assessors

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.	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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.	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

Technology pages by quality
Quality
	Total
FA	13
FL	2
GA	67
B	687
C	3,113
Start	4,644
Stub	1,811
List	254
Category	3,484
Disambig	31
File	53
Portal	185
Project	34
Redirect	835
Template	177
NA	2
Assessed	15,392
Unassessed	1,312
Total	16,704
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 48,536			Ω = 4.72

• Combination lock (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Henry Sutton (inventor) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Moto G54 5G (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• Owner's manual (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t
  )
• Try pot (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t
  )

• Commercial readiness index (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t)

• Draft:Azuki (nft) (talk) removed.

• Advanced energy economy renamed to Advanced Energy United
  .
• Eero (wifi) renamed to Eero (wireless networking brand)
  .

• Advanced Energy United (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t)
• AlphaGenome (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t)
• Eero (wireless networking brand) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t)
• Ilan Manor (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Mobile radio (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t)

• Oomph (coffee maker) (talk) removed.

• Artificial intelligence visual art (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)

• Brandi Collins-Dexter (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t)
• GPS/INS (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t)
• Monimoto (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Recraft (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t)

• Plaster spraying (talk) removed.
• USMobile (talk) removed.

• Information Age renamed to Third Industrial Revolution (Information Age)
  .

• Mud cake (oil and gas) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Optical microscope (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• Discovery Museum (Netherlands) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t)
• Edison (book) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t)
• Third Industrial Revolution (Information Age) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t)

• Access Now (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• Access mat (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Acer smartphones (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Addax Petroleum (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Aegion (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Bare-metal server (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Black Shark 3 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Black Shark 4 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Bloomberg Technology (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• CCTV drain camera (plumbing) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Canopy (app) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• Censorship of Snapchat (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• EEBUS (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• EIA/TIA-662 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• EOS SAT-1 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Fab@Home (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• G.983 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• G.992.5 Annex M (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• IEC 60601 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• IEC 62351 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• IEC TC 57 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• ISO/IEC 27701 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• ISO/TS 80004 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• ISO 20815 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• LowRISC (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Moto 360 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• NRF51 series (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Naukova Dumka (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• No Tech for Apartheid (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• Supermind AI (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• USA-268 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• USA-275 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• USA-291 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)

• DME torch (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Xeokit (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t)

• Micro Tech Global Foundation (talk) removed.

• Central Intelligence Agency Directorate of Science & Technology renamed to Directorate of Science and Technology
  .
• Öland Bridge renamed to Öland bridge
  .

• Asia Silicon Valley Development Plan (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Molecular imaging (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• Copyright status of genetic sequences (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t)
• Directorate of Science and Technology (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t)
• IEEE-ISTO (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t)
• John Schulman (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Öland bridge (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

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.

• VHS - Please assess this article for "B" grade. I've made some significant additions and changes. I think the article fulfills the criteria as a "B" article. Thank you! Groink (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Millenniata - Please assess this article for "B" grade. I rewrote it as NPoV. I believe the company itself is only notable for the M-DISC technology (a type of specialty DVD-R), but I'm not sure of the best way to handle that. Advice appreciated! —Hobart (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I noticed that in Talk:Fucking Machines that this unfortunate article has a Good Article status from this WikiProject. This status needs to be reconsidered and likely removed. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]