Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Welcome to the free and open-source software task force, a project devoted to creating, improving, and maintaining articles related to free and open-source software (FOSS), and bringing them to good or featured article status. The scope of this project extends to articles about:

Always remember to follow Wikipedia conventions, and to be bold!

The FOSS task force is supported by WikiProject Software and WikiProject Computing.

Core tasks

Here are some tasks that have to be done constantly or to almost every article. Further down the page you'll find TODO lists with one-off tasks that need to be done.

Verify the bare minimum

Each article about a free and open-source software project should:

  1. Contain a link to the Free and open-source software portal:
    • add {{Portal|Free and open-source software}} to the "See also" section or the last section of prose in the article body.
    • Alternatively, add {{Portal bar|Free and open-source software}} to the bottom of the page.
  2. Mention that it is free and open-source software in the opening paragraph, preferably in the first sentence
  3. Describe the free software licenses used by the project, preferably in the infobox, with a citation to the project's license
  4. Use {{citation needed}} to tag any unverified statements

Complete tasks on to-do list

Those tasks are the backlog of issues found by other task force members.

Add references

Make sure that your source meets the criteria for reliable sources, especially that they are not self-published (personal blogs, forums, etc.). This project develops its own list of useful, reliable sources and a custom search engine. Feel free to audit and improve the list with other reliable sources you can find.

Improve article links

Many articles containing phrases such as "free software licence" or "free software community", when it is usually better to link to "free software licence" and "free software community" instead of the main free software article.

Free and open-source software articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
GA 1 2 3 6 1 13
B 14 27 37 37 2 117
C 11 85 170 312 18 596
Start 35 183 835 186 1,239
Stub 1 1 14 347 134 497
List 7 17 16 13 53
Category 127 127
Disambig 2 2
File 3 3
Portal 2 2
Project 2 2
Redirect 3 10 45 126 184
Template 35 35
NA 2 2
Other 2 2 4
Assessed 27 160 434 1,598 301 356 2,876
Unassessed 1 179 180
Total 28 160 434 1,598 301 535 3,056
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 11,938 Ω = 4.85

Article alerts

Proposed deletions

  • 12 Nov 2024 – ORBit (talk · edit · hist) was PRODed by Mika1h (t · c): Fails WP:GNG for not including any references to significant coverage in reliable sources.

Requested moves

  • 08 Nov 2024 – React (JavaScript library) (talk · edit · hist) is requested to be moved to React (software) by Fgnievinski (t · c); see discussion
  • 03 Nov 2024 – Bada (talk · edit · hist) move request to Bada (operating system) by RachelTensions (t · c) was closed; see discussion

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Open tasks

Active participants

Participants

If you wish to join the project, please add your name to the list with: 

#{{np2|username}} ~~~~~

Join the free and open-source software task force

  1. Quickfixdemon (talk · contribs) 14:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DigitalDasein (talk · contribs) 13:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daveout (talk · contribs) 08:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dexxor (talk · contribs) 18:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Forlornacorn (talk · contribs) 02:14, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gamingforfun365 (talk · contribs) 06:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Isacdaavid (talk · contribs) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 03:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  9. JorgePeixoto (talk · contribs) 18:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. K4rolB (talk · contribs) 22:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Newslinger (talk · contribs) 20:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  12. PrinceKael (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Priyanshu1rai (talk · contribs) 05:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ScotXW (talk · contribs) 13:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk · contribs) 21:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. WildStar (talk · contribs) 14:07, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yae4 (talk · contribs) 01:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  18. psypherium (talk · contribs) 15:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Lkb335 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  20. GavriilaDmitriev (talk · contribs) 12:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Palosirkka (talk · contribs) 07:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Labdajiwa (talk · contribs) 03:00, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Machiavellian Gaddafi (talk · contribs) 09:48, 06 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  24. CoderThomasB (talk · contribs) 00:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  25. SPAAAAACE (talk · contribs) 14:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  26. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk · contribs) 23:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. TappyTurtle (talk · contribs) 05:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. BlauweVis (talk · contribs) 18:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. GracenC (talk · contribs) 14:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inactive and former participants
  1. 0xd34df00d (talk · contribs) 08:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A.Ou (talk · contribs) 01:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Adam1213 (talk · contribs) 10:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aditya.as (talk · contribs) 18:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ajith P V (talk · contribs) 08:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AlexKmml (talk · contribs) 21:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alfasst (talk · contribs) 16:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Amit6 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Anhimgr8 (talk · contribs) 03:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Annoyamouse (talk · contribs) 06:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Antonio Lopez (talk · contribs) 17:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Apageor2 (talk · contribs) 19:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Arcyqwerty (talk · contribs) 21:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Ashawley (talk · contribs) 02:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Bazinga26 (talk · contribs) 17:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Bbabybear02 (talk · contribs) 05:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Bbadger (talk · contribs) 16:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Benjamin Mako Hill (talk · contribs) 13:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Blacksmith (talk · contribs) 09:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Bodsda (talk · contribs) 11:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Bytbox (talk · contribs) 09:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. CFeyecare (talk · contribs) 02:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Cabalamat (talk · contribs) 05:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Carpetsmoker (talk · contribs) 01:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Cbryeaw (talk · contribs) 15:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Chenzw (talk · contribs) 10:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. ChristinFrohne (talk · contribs) 12:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Chills42 (talk · contribs) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. CloneDeath (talk · contribs) 19:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Codecodelover (talk · contribs) 21:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  31. CoolingGibbon (talk · contribs) 00:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Cooljeanius (talk · contribs) 23:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Cyberdiablo (talk · contribs) 18:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 06:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  35. DENAMAX (talk · contribs) 18:15, 23 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
  36. Daimanta (talk · contribs) 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. DaniDarling (talk · contribs) 18:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Daniel kenneth (talk · contribs) 14:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Deblopper (talk · contribs) 17:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Ewald (talk · contribs) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. FOSSilised (talk · contribs) 16:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Feezo (talk · contribs) 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Flaming (talk · contribs) 03:16, 14 February 2008‎ (UTC)[reply]
  44. FlyingToaster (talk · contribs) 01:40, 4 January 2009‎ (UTC)[reply]
  45. Gl1d3r (talk · contribs) 02:21, 3 December 2010‎ (UTC)[reply]
  46. Gnepets (talk · contribs) 12:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Greenman (talk · contribs) 10:22, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Gronky (talk · contribs) 14:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Guyjohnston (talk · contribs) 12:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. H2g2bob (talk · contribs) 14:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Happysmileman (talk · contribs) 16:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. HockeyInJune (talk · contribs) 02:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Hotshotesquire (talk · contribs) 01:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Hyperreallogic (talk · contribs) 02:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Infamouse (talk · contribs) 16:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Initramfs (talk · contribs) 23:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Iraneal (talk · contribs) 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Isilanes (talk · contribs) 14:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. JackSlice (talk · contribs) 05:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Je mir (talk · contribs) 10:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Jet123 (talk · contribs) 01:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Jimduchek (talk · contribs) 15:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Joeblakesley (talk · contribs) 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Johnsu01 (talk · contribs) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Jonathan.roberts.uk (talk · contribs) 8:17, 6 Marth 2007 (UTC)
  67. JordanMussi (talk · contribs) 13:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Jrtayloriv (talk · contribs) 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Karl.brown (talk · contribs) 21:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Kibo no shirei-kan (talk · contribs)
  71. KernelExcqtable (talk · contribs) 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  72. KeybladeSephi (talk · contribs) 22:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Kl4m (talk · contribs) 03:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Klez (talk · contribs) 18:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Koman90 (talk · contribs) 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Linus M. (talk · contribs) 16:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Little Filament (talk · contribs) 15:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Luca Edd Fike (talk · contribs) 12:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Ma11achy (talk · contribs) 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Mad Pierrot (talk · contribs) 19:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Mayurf (talk · contribs) 00:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Md gilbert (talk · contribs) 20:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Melab-1 (talk · contribs) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Melnakeeb (talk · contribs) 09:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Menasim (talk · contribs) 18:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. MichaelNetzer (talk · contribs) 08:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Mike Linksvayer (talk · contribs) 19:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Mnair69 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 12 December 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]
  89. Mohammadnasiruddin (talk · contribs) 00:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Monochrome Monitor (talk · contribs) 01:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Muchris (talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Narwaro (talk · contribs) 22:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  93. NerdyNSK (talk · contribs) 00:56, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Nickispeaki (talk · contribs) 08:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Nightrune (talk · contribs) 00:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Northgrove (talk · contribs) 13:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. P3net (talk · contribs) 05:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Palmpilot (talk · contribs) 01:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Pmresource (talk · contribs) 12:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Potatoj316 (talk · contribs) 19:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Punk physicist (talk · contribs) 20:59, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Puttyschool (talk · contribs) 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Raunak777 (talk · contribs) 12:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. RedDwarfPlanet (talk · contribs) 19:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  105. RedSpike101 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Resistor (talk · contribs) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Richlv (talk · contribs) 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Rozzychan (talk · contribs) 10:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Russh (talk · contribs) 11:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  110. RyGuy (talk · contribs) 14:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Saeedbiniqbal (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 February 2008‎ (UTC)[reply]
  112. SantaWinsAgain (talk · contribs) 13:20, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Sco1996 (talk · contribs) 07:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Sean (talk · contribs) 20:08, 26 December 2009‎ (UTC)[reply]
  115. Sean Amoss (talk · contribs) 18:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Secondplanet (talk · contribs) 16:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Sgartner (talk · contribs) 21:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Shooke (talk · contribs) 19:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Shruti14 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Sidnext2none (talk · contribs) 10:05, 22 October 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]
  121. Skeith (talk · contribs) 16:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Smmsadrnezh (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Sodaplayer (talk · contribs) 22:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Some Gadget Geek (talk · contribs) 20:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  125. SpK (talk · contribs) 13:18, 22 February 2007‎ (UTC)[reply]
  126. Stephenchou0722 (talk · contribs) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Stewart Little (talk · contribs) 14:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Stormchaser (talk · contribs) 17:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Sub-Z3R0 (talk · contribs) 00:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Superm401 (talk · contribs) 03:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Tharikrish (talk · contribs) 15:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Themcman1 (talk · contribs) 10:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Theoa (talk · contribs) 07:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Thorenn (talk · contribs) 21:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Timeshifter (talk · contribs) 22:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Tinucherian (talk · contribs) 06:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Tiven2240 (talk · contribs) 08:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Trisweb (talk · contribs) 00:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Tyciol (talk · contribs) 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Unforgiven24 (talk · contribs) 04:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. UrbanTerrorist (talk · contribs) 20:17, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  142. VARGUX (talk · contribs) 20:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. VJ (talk · contribs) 17:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Vendion (talk · contribs) 18:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Vincentvikram (talk · contribs) 07:20, 28 March 2010‎ (UTC)[reply]
  146. Vishwin60 (talk · contribs) 20:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Waterfox (talk · contribs) 22:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Wei2912 (talk · contribs) 07:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Wikinerd2000 (talk · contribs) 18:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Wwwolf3 (talk · contribs) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Yarou (talk · contribs) 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Zephyris (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Zhaofeng Li (talk · contribs) 14:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  154. ranjithraj (talk · contribs) 07:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  155. BreakingMuse (talk · contribs) 21:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Flori4nK (talk · contribs) 14:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  157. G105b (talk · contribs) 09:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Guy Macon (talk · contribs) 20:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Jubinmr (talk · contribs) 23:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Nirvanatoday (talk · contribs) 01:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Ph03n1x77 (talk · contribs) 15:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Rohit Goswami UI (talk · contribs) 03:56, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Splinemath (talk · contribs) 05:50, 23 April 2019‎ (UTC)[reply]
  164. Zazpot (talk · contribs) 13:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Senn-00 (talk · contribs) 02:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


After you sign up, please get active on this page and/or on the talk page. You may want to add some of the below todo lists to your watch list.

Templates

Articles

To tag an article as a FOSS article, please add the following to the top of its talk page:

{{WikiProject Computing|class=|importance=|free-software=y|free-software-importance=|software=y|software-importance=}}

This produces the following banner:

WikiProject iconComputing: Software / Free and open-source software Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Free and open-source software.

The banner adds the talk page to Category:WikiProject Free and open-source software articles.

Userbox

The FOSS task force userbox is transcluded by using {{User FOSS task force}}, which yields:

This user is in the free and open-source software task force.

Invitation

To invite a user to the FOSS task force, use {{subst:FOSS task force invite}}, which displays:

Hi, WikiProject Software/Free and open-source software task force! Thank you for your contributions to articles related to free and open-source software. I'd like to invite you to become a part of the free and open-source software task force, a project aimed at improving the quality of articles about free and open-source software on Wikipedia.

If you would like to participate, please visit the free and open-source software task force for more information. Feel free to sign your name under "Participants". Thanks! ~~~~

Use {{subst:FOSS task force invite|heading=y}} to include a section heading before the message.

Assessment

The Assessment department will focus on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's FOSS-related articles. This will aid us in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Stub-, Start-, and B-class assessments can be made by every editor (although generally you should not assess an article on which you have had a major influence). A-class assessment is made within this project, while Good Article and Feature Article assessments require formal review procedures outside of this project.

Assessment should be conducted following these guidelines.

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
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. FreeBSD
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. GNU General Public License
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. Free and open-source software
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. cd (command)
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. Integer set library
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. Comparison of free and open-source software licenses

See also

Categories

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Software/Free_and_open-source_software_task_force&oldid=1246536468"