Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"WP:CLASSES" redirects here. For the catalogue of CSS classes, see WP:CLASS.
For a more general overview of assessment at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Assessment.

The following system is used by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for assessing how close we are to a distribution-quality article on a particular topic. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors. Once an article reaches the A-ClassSymbol a class.svg, it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made.

The quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles. These tags are then collected by a bot, which generates output such as a table, log and statistics. For more information, see Using the bot. (Note that when more than one WikiProject has rated an article, the bot will take the best rating as the rating of the overall article.) The WP:1.0 team is now setting up to use a second bot to select articles, based on the assessments performed by WikiProjects.

Two levels, GA ("Good Article") and FA ("Featured Article"), are assessments made by external panels, rather than by Wikiprojects. Candidates are nominated by listing them at Good article nominations and Featured article candidates. Judgments are made according to the criteria at What is a good article? and Featured article criteria, and the results are listed at Good articles and Featured articles.

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. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. Many projects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment.

At present this assessment system is in use in the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and in several hundred WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. As of December 2013, over 3.8 million articles have been assessed. Several other languages are also using this assessment system or a derivative thereof.

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 a proposed template at {{Importance Scheme}}


WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Non-standard grades

Some WikiProjects use a few other assessments for the main namespace that do not fit into the scale. The more popular assessments, in no particular order:

Other WikiProject assessments
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Detailed, clear and accessible, often with history or images; possible good article nominee. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject which attempts to be as accessible as possible, with a minimum of jargon. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. May be improved by input from experts to assess where coverage is still missing, and also by illustrations, historical background and further references. Consider peer review or nominating for good article status. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. Gödel's incompleteness theorems (as of December 2010)
A topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic of which no broadcasted version exists so far and all information is subject to change when new information arises from reliable sources. With multiple reliable sources there might be information that contradicts other information in the same or other articles. Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event draws near. Material added might be speculation and should be carefully sourced. Preston City Council election, 2014 (as of September 2013)
A topic where details are subject to change often. The article covers an event or topic that is currently going on, such as a football game or a sports team's season. Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event goes on. Material added might quickly become obsolete. March 2013 nor'easter (as of September 2013)
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. Aa River (as of June 2008)
Any non-article page that does not fit into any other category. The page does not have article content. May or may not apply, depending on the type of page. any WikiProject's internal resources
Any redirect falls under this class. Collapse Into Now
Any Wikipedia book falls under this class. Book:Canada
Any template falls under this class. Template:Magnapop
Any category falls under this class. Category:George Orwell

Some WikiProjects use additional grades not listed above, such as those used at WP:Comics. Most common are "Cat", "Dab" (for Disambiguation), "Current" (for ongoing events), "Image", "Needed", and "Template". See the relevant Assessment page for the WikiProject, at Category:WikiProject assessments.

Evolution of an article – an example

See also: outreach:Evolution of an Article

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 Oct 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 & 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.AssessmentTimeline.png
About this image

However, not all articles do end up always at Featured Article. The Isaac Newton article (as of October 2nd 2014) is an example. On July 2014, the article was at B-class, but because of better development, this article reached Good-article-class.


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.

See also

  • Wikipedia:Article assessment, the previous version superseded by this version.
  • User:Pyrospirit/metadata, a script (and gadget) that finds articles' assessment information from the talk page and puts it in the article's header.
  • User:Kephir/gadgets/rater, a script for tagging articles' talk pages with assessment information
  • User:N8wilson/AQFetcher, a script that stylizes links on Wikipedia according to the assessed quality of the target article.
  • mw:Article feedback, an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to engage Wikimedia readers in the assessment of article quality, one of the five priorities defined in the strategic plan.
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA