ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment
 | This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first 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 factually 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. (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}}.
Grades
[ਸੋਧੋ]
| 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:ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ:Featured article criteria
|
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:ਵਿਕੀਪੀਡੀਆ:Featured list criteria
|
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. | 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
|
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
|
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
|
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. | Human (as of April 2019) |
| 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:
|
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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. | Ring-tailed cardinalfish (as of June 2018) |
| 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. | Crescent Falls (as of June 2018) |
| 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 Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947 (as of June 2018) |
Non-standard grades
[ਸੋਧੋ]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:
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| B {{Bplus-Class}} |
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) |
| ਫਰਮਾ:Future-Class {{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. | Preston City Council election, 2014 (as of September 2013) |
| ਫਰਮਾ:Current-Class {{Current-Class}} |
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) |
| 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 |
| Redirect {{Redirect-Class}} |
Any redirect falls under this class. | Collapse Into Now | ||
| Book {{Book-Class}} |
Any Wikipedia book falls under this class. | Book:Canada | ||
| Template {{Template-Class}} |
Any template falls under this class. | Template:Magnapop | ||
| Category {{Category-Class}} |
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
[ਸੋਧੋ]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.
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.
Statistics
[ਸੋਧੋ]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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ਫਰਮਾ:AbQ Pie | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
See also
[ਸੋਧੋ]- 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
- 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.