Wikipedia:Content assessment - Wikipedia


Article Images

"WP:CLASSES" redirects here. For the catalogue of CSS classes, see WP:CLASS.

This page in a nutshell: Anyone can add a quality assessment below GA-class, regardless of WikiProjects. Higher ratings require more formal processes and consensus.

The following system is used to assess the quality of a Wikipedia article. The system is based on a letter scheme that reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though language quality and layout are also factors.

The quality assessments are mainly performed by Wikipedia editors, who tag Talk pages of articles; some bots set the class tag for assessment based on other Talk tags or based on editor selected values. Editor assistance tools like Rater apply automated ORES or Lift Wing article assessments, offering a prediction based on structural characteristics of the page (e.g. sectioning and references) that correlate with quality, for the class tag. These tags are then collected by a bot, which generates output such as a log and statistics. For more information, see Using the bot. In 2023, project-independent quality assessments were introduced, so editors only have to rate an article once and it applies to all associated projects.

Most grades are assessed by individual editors according to the criteria on this page. Generally speaking, all editors, including editors who have written or improved an article, are encouraged to boldly set any quality rating that they believe is appropriate, except for the GA, FA, and A-class ratings. GAs (Good Articles) are generally reviewed by a single independent editor after a nomination at WP:Good article nominations. FAs (Featured Articles) are reviewed by several editors at WP:Featured article candidates. Be aware that a few projects have opted out of the standard quality scale, and use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment.

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. If there is disagreement over the quality rating of an article, then it should be discussed on the article's talk page.

As of August 2024, over eight million articles have been assessed. Several other languages are also using this assessment system or a derivative thereof.

 The assessment ratings mentioned here have no relationship whatsoever to grading in education or review scores like A/B/C/D/F or other rating systems (10-point scale, 5-star system, etc.) that you might see on homework and product reviews. They represent the amount of work needed to bring the article to the next rating, which depends on both the quality of the writing and the depth of coverage of the topic, which greatly varies by subject.

Note that the differences between Stub, Start, and C classes are fairly subjective; at those ratings, the best way to improve the article is to look at the specific criteria for B-Class and aim to satisfy those. Specific feedback can often be obtained on a relevant WikiProject's talk page. Those can usually be found on the talk page of the article, but searching for them can often reveal more topical projects. For instance, if you wrote about a Kenyan astronomer, you might want to search for "Biography", "Kenya", and "Astronomy" to find WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Kenya and WikiProject Astronomy.

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:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 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:

  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. 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

The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).

 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

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 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

  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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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 appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
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:

  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 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. Ball
(as of September 2014)
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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 literary movements

Note: Some WikiProjects omit some of the standard classes, most often A-Class, especially when they lack an assessment team.

Some WikiProjects use other assessments for mainspace content that do not fit into the above scale:

Other WikiProject assessments
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
Future A topic for which details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic, e.g., a forthcoming election or album release, and article content may change as new information arises. Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event draws near. Material added might be speculative and should be carefully sourced. Next United Kingdom general election (as of October 2019)
SIA Any set index article (SIA) page falls under this class. These are List articles about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name. The page lists related items of the same name. An SIA need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages USS Yorktown (as of May 2018)
Disambig 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. Jackson (as of August 2019)
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page does not display any article content and redirects to a related topic. Ensure that the redirect is appropriately categorized. American breakfast (as of October 2016)
Needed May be used to identify redirects that could be expanded into articles, or articles with content that could be split off to form a new page. Content may not yet exist for the desired topic. Editors are encouraged to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Free City of Mainz (as of March 2018)
NA A page that does not fit into any other category. Used as a "catch-all" by all WikiProjects. Depends on the type of page. Depends on the type of page. N/A

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment which utilises a parallel scheme of "CL-Class", "BL-Class" and "AL-Class" for list articles.

Non-mainspace content

edit

Further grades are commonly used by WikiProjects to categorize relevant pages in other namespaces. The precise application of these grades may vary depending on their usage by individual WikiProjects.

Non-mainspace assessments
Label Criteria Example
Category Any category falls under this class. Category:George Orwell
Draft Any draft falls under this class. These are typically found in the Draft namespace, but may also be in the User namespace. Draft:Example
File Any file falls under this class; may also include timed text pages. File:Flag of Australia.svg
  FM Any file which has attained featured picture or featured sound status. File:Felis silvestris silvestris.jpg
Portal Any portal falls under this class. Portal:Biography
Project Any project page falls under this class; may also include help pages. Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan
Template Any template falls under this class; may also include modules or userboxes. Template:Magnapop
User Any user page falls under this class. User:Legoktm/afcnew.js

Note that some WikiProjects deal exclusively with non-mainspace content and may use their own customised assessment schemes tailored to a specific purpose: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Assessment for one such example.

For an index of all WikiProject assessment pages, see Category:WikiProject assessments.

 Parts of this Wikipedia page (those related to the fact that Atom has been downgraded to B-Class) need to be updated. Please help update this Wikipedia page to reflect recent events or newly available information. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. (July 2023)

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 Dec 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 and 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.

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 the template {{importance scheme}}.

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.

All rated articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low ??? Total
  FA 1,574 2,493 2,409 1,947 180 8,603
  FL 181 678 769 697 99 2,424
  A 369 682 788 581 90 2,510
  GA 3,222 7,327 14,757 19,543 1,740 46,589
B 16,957 32,863 54,408 69,036 23,456 196,720
C 16,941 54,085 135,357 309,905 92,061 608,349
Start 18,521 92,382 415,896 1,620,859 412,203 2,559,861
Stub 4,282 31,507 278,316 2,802,348 765,209 3,881,662
List 4,867 17,163 53,915 194,267 69,125 339,337
Assessed 66,914 239,180 956,615 5,019,183 1,364,163 7,646,055
Unassessed 123 474 1,229 17,117 409,246 428,189
Total 67,037 239,654 957,844 5,036,300 1,773,409 8,074,244
What is the purpose of article assessments?
The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
Are these ratings official?
Not really; these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
Who can assess articles?
In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, assessing an article as "A-Class" generally requires the agreement of at least two editors, and the "GA" and "FA" labels should be used only on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes.
How do I assess an article?
Consult the quality scale above; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, go to the article's talk page and set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use |class=B in the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless they are currently designated as such. Tools in the See also section can help with the assessment process.
How can I ask for an article to be assessed?
To have an independent editor review an article, post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Requesting an assessment.
Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject'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 article's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article tagging for more information.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
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!
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
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. Wikipedia:Peer review is the process designed to provide detailed comments.