Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This page documents an English Wikipedia guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss your idea on the talk page. |
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 complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors. Once an article reaches the A-Class, 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 then generates output such as a table, log and statistics. For more information see Using the bot. 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 and FA, are not assessments that can be assigned simply by a project member. These refer to external judgments of article quality made at WP:GA and WP:FA. If these tags are desired, and the article meets the criteria (for GA or FA), it must be nominated (for GA or FA) and await comments.
It is vital that people not take these assessments personally. It is understood that we all have different priorities and different opinions about what makes 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 March 16, 2009, over 1,680,000 articles have been assessed. Other languages are now beginning to use the system also.
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}}.
Contents |
[edit] Grades
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The article has attained featured article status.
|
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. | Tourette Syndrome (as of March 2009) |
|||
The article has attained featured list status.
|
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. | Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (as of February 2009) |
|||
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
|
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. | Batman (1989 film) (as of October 2008) |
|||
The article has attained good article status.
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. | 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. | Usain Bolt (as of May 2009) |
|||
| B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|
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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style and related style guidelines. | Jammu and Kashmir (as of September 2007) |
||
| C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
|
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 address cleanup issues. | Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008) |
||
| Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Real analysis (as of November 2006) |
||
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic.
|
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. | Cuthwine (as of August 2008) |
||
| List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 aikidoka (as of June 2007) |
[edit] Non-standard grades
There are a few other assessments used in the mainspace that are done by WikiProjects but do not fit into the scale. Some of these are not used by all WikiProjects. In no particular order:
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Future {{Future-Class}} |
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. | The Waters of Mars (as of May 2009) |
| Disambig {{Disambig-Class}} |
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) |
| NA {{NA-Class}} |
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 |
Some WikiProjects use additional grades not listed above, such as those used at WP:Comics. Most common are Cat, Dab (for Disambiguation), Current and Future (for ongoing and upcoming events, respectively, the articles about which may be incomplete or unstable), Image, Needed, and Template. See relevant Assessment page for the WikiProject, at Category:WikiProject assessments.
[edit] Evolution of an article – an example
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.
[edit] 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.


