Wiki143:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wikipedia articles by quality statistics}}

Script error: No such module "Shortcut".

Welcome to the assessment department of the Wikipedia WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia-related articles (for scope, see the WikiProject page). While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the Template:Tlx banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Wikipedia articles by quality and Category:Wikipedia articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

<templatestyles src="Template:TOC_left/styles.css" /><templatestyles src="Template:TOC limit/styles.css" />

Subpages

Template:Flatlist

Popular pages: A bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles.

Frequently asked questions

See also the general assessment FAQ
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add Template:Tl to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a Template:Tl template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the project talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Wikipedia is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the detailed assessment scale below.
6. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
7. What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the detailed assessment scale below.
8. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, but it's the best system we've been able to devise. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
9. What if I have a question not listed here?
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions

Quality assessments

Template:Assessment Class Summary

<templatestyles src="Navbar-header/styles.css"/>

Importance assessment

Template:Assessment Importance Summary

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Wikipedia.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Template:Importance scheme/rowTemplate:Importance scheme/rowTemplate:Importance scheme/rowTemplate:Importance scheme/rowTemplate:Importance scheme/rowTemplate:Importance scheme/rowTemplate:Importance scheme/row

Assessment requests

Script error: No such module "Message box". Script error: No such module "labelled list hatnote". If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it:

  • On the article's Talk page, blank the class parameter like WikiProject banner shell|class=|.
    The article is then immediately included at Category:Unassessed articles and associated WikiProject sub-categories.
OR
  • List the request below, and SIGN with four ~~~~ and then wait for the article's assessment. Note that due to the article's topic and/or the limited number of volunteers here at this wikiproject, and the backlog of requests, there may be a significant delay answering the request.

Requests from 2025


Requests from July 2025

Requests from June 2025

Template:Cot


Template:Cob


Requests from 2025 - January to May

Requests from May 2025

File:Yes check.svg Done reassessed as C class. GoldRomean (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)
File:Yes check.svg Done assessed as start class. GoldRomean (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Requests from April 2025


Requests from March 2025


Requests from February 2025


Requests from January 2025

Delectopierre (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Template:Respond, kept at c class. would recommend checking wp:mos to clarify prose. article structure would be better sorted into broader "history", "location", "design/architecture" sections. is there more information about the hauntings that make it lead-worthy? source 2 leads to an error page and i placed a few citation needed tags to improve. nice work so far!--Plifal (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting reassessment of St Martin's, Isles of Scilly from start to C-Class following recent updates and improvements. Thankyou for your time and consideration to this request. 82.38.214.91 (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:Yes check.svg Done I have reassessed at C-class. Looks good! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 00:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting assessment for Platon Rozhdestvensky. This is the longest article I've written and am simply looking for feedback on it. Thank you in advance!Alexthegod5 (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:Yes check.svg Done Alexthegod5 I have assessed as a C-class Article. It is well sourced and has plenty of links to other articles. Good Job! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 00:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting reassessment for Grevillea exul. I have expanded upon this page with numerous scientific papers and online resources, as well as information from a book I have specifically on the genus. I believe the page deserves at the very least a C-class rating, as it is no longer a stub. Thank you. Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:Yes check.svg Done Lord.of.the.Proterozoic I have reassessed it as a C-class article. It is fairly well written for a plant, as I have noticed those hardly ever make it above Start-class. Good Work! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thank you! I will keep up what I'm doing with creating and improving articles for Grevillea and Hakea species. Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting reassessment for 1906 California gubernatorial election and 1902 California gubernatorial election. Articles have been expanded upon alot by myself and others. Thank you! NewishIdeas (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:Yes check.svg Done NewishIdeas I have reassessed the article as a C-class article. It looks nice! Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting reassessment for Mardakan. I've been updating and adding information to the article for a very long time. I believe it should not be classified as a Start-class article anymore. Please be kind to reassess it again. Thank you very much! Nuritae331 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:Yes check.svg Done Nuritae331 I have reassessed the article at C-class. One thing I noticed is that in the section titled Etymology there was no reference cited for most of the paragraph. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 20:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Request reassessment for 1910 California gubernatorial election. Currently rated stub class, but has been expanded upon alot. Thank you! NewishIdeas (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:Yes check.svg Done Assessed at C-class. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting reassessment for Music of Gunbuster. For Music of Gunbuster, this was because Areaseven siginificantly expanded on it in 2023 and 2024. I do not believe the Stub-Class designation is correct for an article of that length. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:Yes check.svg Done Assessed at Start-class. I don't think it qualifies for C-class yet, but it is definitely at least Start-class. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting reassessment for Emily Patricia Gibson. It was a stub article, but I have expanded on it significantly. Thank you! Chefcat29 (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2025
    Template:Respond by Schwede66 they gave it a C-class. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting reassessment for Third medium contact method. The article now covers all developments of the third medium contact method, including the most recent ones from 2025, a description of the basic approach (without too much technical detail), brief sections on its applications, and it is well-cited. I would appreciate it if other editors could review the article and provide their feedback on this request.AHFrederiksen (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
    File:Yes check.svg Done Assessed at C-class. It looks fairly good, it may qualify for a B-class, but a more experienced reviewer should look at it. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 06:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Requesting an assessment for the Pete Ondeng article. I have been working on it to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's BLP policy. Feedback is needed on:
  • Reliability of sources used.
  • Neutrality in tone—does it seem promotional?
  • Contentious or poorly sourced material.
Your assistance in reviewing or improving the article is greatly appreciated! Emily Emiliene k (talk)

Assessment log

Wikipedia articles:
Template:WP1
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Wikipedia articles by quality log}}