Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ask yourselves: why didn't you look up Wikipedia's articles about economy, Dmitri Mendeleev, man, or land even though you know little about them? Simple, because they suck. Millions of people feel the same way too. This is not acceptable on our side and this must be changed by making these articles good.

Subpages

Past work

30 kB drive
47 articles expanded to 30 kilobytes; 26 July 2022 – 31 August 2022
Vital GA Drive
good article status
, unsuccessful; 1 September – 15 November 2022

Function

This WikiProject is designed to be a public space that has neat stuff to do or learn about, and to serve as a place where you sit down, relax, and make edits or discuss with others. Its purpose is to improve the Vitals articles and lists. We always welcome anonymous and new people here (and if you are one of them, have a chat at the talk page!)

There is no such thing as "joining" or "registering" for this WikiProject, as it is an overarching project that aims to gather other WikiProjects together for collaboration. If you're actively improving vital articles, you're already a member of this WikiProject. If you want to find people that are working on Vital articles, use this link to find recent edits and talk to them directly.

Tasks

Improving a Vital article

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles/Tools

While we might not know the exact formula for mass-producing Vital GAs, we do know ways to tackle and improve these kind of articles. Here are some techniques that you can use:

If you had completed all of these basic techniques, here are some of the more specialized yet powerful ways that you can improve Vital articles. Enjoy these dishes with extra Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and common sense:

Awards

We have a good roster of awards given to those that help us advance the goal to make all Vital Articles GAs and FAs. These awards may be awarded by anyone to anyone worthy.

Barnstars

  • {{
    barnstar
    , given to those that have done a good job.
Vital Barnstar
{{{1}}}
The Vital Articles Barnstar
{{{1}}}

Userboxes

Vital articlesThis user is interested in improving vital articles.
  • {{
    userbox
    , given to those that have done a good job.
This user has received a Vital barnstar.
  • {{Good Vital infobox}} – Userbox for those that have successfully nominated a Vital good article.
This user has helped promote vital good articles on Wikipedia.
This user has helped promote vital featured articles on Wikipedia.

Assessment

For mobile readers, you can click here to switch to desktop mode to read the table more easily. This Vital article assessment scheme is meant to be subjective and complementary to Wikipedia:Content assessment.

Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article is professional, complete, engaging, and has been vetted by WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
  1. It meets the
    systematic bias.
  2. It will not be ridiculed for experts for over-generalization, yet is still understandable by a secondary school student.
  3. It feels "structured"
– navigable, accessible, intelligible, editable, and translatable.
  • It has a good selection of see also and further reading links, akin to a professor's reading/interactive content recommendations for the student.
    		•  Experts and casual readers alike will find the content easy to digest, accurate, and engaging. You can format the article to look like an actual Nature journal article and it would look believable. Improve the prose, update the information, remove vandalism, make the text more professional and engaging, all the WikiGnome stuff! Try to make the text more readable and engaging to a wider audience if you dare. Solar System
     A The article is well organized, complete in terms of content, and has been examined by a dedicated WikiProject department such as WikiProject Military History A-class assessment. As a special assessment rank, it meets the A-Class criteria. The actual criteria can be slightly different due to nuances within individual WikiProjects. Readers will find it complete, but experts will know better and still have grumbling at missing/incorrect information throughout the article. There will still be hiccups or typos when you read the article top-down. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need to be addressed. Consider contacting experts at your relevant A-Class department for more advice. Napoleon
     GA The article is reasonably complete and suitable for translation to other languages, after being vetted WP:Good article nominations.
    More detailed criteria
    1. It meets the
      secondary sources
      are written from the late-20th century (1970s) onwards. This criterion would ensure that the article is up to date.
    		 Fairly standard quality level for a top-tier Encyclopædia Britannica article but with less generalization and dumb-downness. Readers will at least not be drowned in text, and experts will find it usable for refreshing their memory. Detect Wikipedia:Systemic bias in the article and address them; more viewpoints generally meant better article at this point. Touch-up on your citations and style and make sure the text is in line with your sources. Make sure that the text is appealing to a wide audience and not a slog to read. Marie Curie
    B The article is kinda complete, reliable and suitably organized. From this point on, there is no need to revamp the article layout.
    More detailed criteria
    It meets the six B-Class criteria:
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. The article presents its content in an
      technical terms should be explained or avoided
      where possible.
    		 "Seems good", a reader thought. Citations, prose and images are better than average, but lots of cruds still remain. Experts would likely look elsewhere for content, maybe at a specialist encyclopedia or journal articles if they need answer to specific questions. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. Start addressing systematic bias since this article will be translated to other languages and the inclusion of media should be considered as well. Atom
    C The article is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. It may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. When a reader scrolls down, they would see a vast amount of text no more useful than at a random website, with no coherent theme, and dumpster fire of terrible sources. "This article could be better" – they thought. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organization. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Food preservation
    Start The article sorely lacks content, and lacks a lot of it. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic. Readers find it just a bit more useful than a dictionary definition, and experts will scoff on it. And they would definitely not read more than the lead portion of the article. Find sources and add content based on them. Make sure that you make the article structure easy to expand upon. Think about a general "theme" or "flow" to the article – what do you want it to look like? Equation
    Stub A very basic description of the topic that needs a ton of content expansion. The article will need much work to become a meaningful article. "Ah yes, that thing exists on Wikipedia" – a reader thought. Then they close Wikipedia and search on Google to hunt down more reliable/comprehensive content. Add content like there's no tomorrow. Keep doing it. Add more content! Rapids

    Dashboard

    Article alerts

    For article alerts about a specific level, see:

    For article alerts on all vital articles (levels 1–5):

    Today's featured articles

    Today's featured article requests

    Did you know

    Redirects for discussion

    (63 more...)

    Files for discussion

    Featured article candidates

    Good article nominees

    (32 more...)

    Good topic candidates

    Featured article reviews

    (2 more...)

    Good article reassessments

    • 17 Apr 2024 – London, Ontario (talk · edit · hist) was nominated for GA reassessment by 750h+ (t · c); see discussion
    • 16 Apr 2024 – Mohanlal (talk · edit · hist) nominated for GA reassessment by NoobThreePointOh (t · c) was closed; see discussion

    Requests for comments

    (1 more...)

    Peer reviews

    (6 more...)

    Requested moves

    (16 more...)

    Articles to be merged

    (17 more...)

    Articles to be split

    (71 more...)
    Updated daily by
    AAlertBot — Discuss? / Report bug? / Request feature?
    Click to watch (Subscribe via  RSS  Atom) · Find Article Alerts for other topics!

    Statistics

    Vital pages by quality
    Quality
    Total
    FA 1,230
    FL 10
    A 25
    GA 2,434
    B 12,214
    C 18,535
    Start 14,330
    Stub 1,075
    List 124
    Assessed 49,977
    Unassessed 1
    Total 49,978
    WikiWork factors (?) ω = 193,775 Ω = 3.89

    See also
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vital_Articles&oldid=1217475473"