Jump to content

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment rewrite

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We elected to use the combined version of the table for the main description.

This page is to be used for the revised drafting of the assessment criteria. The main summary page will be drafted here, and we will have other detailed pages linked from here.

Assessment guidelines

[edit]

WikiProject-based assessment levels are shown first. These ratings are given by individual WikiProjects to articles under their scope.

WikiProject article progress grading scheme [ ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
A
{{A-Class}}
An article that is well organized and is essentially complete, having gone through some internal review by the WikiProject, but which may need style issues addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. 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 is needed to "tweak" the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. Durian (as of March 2007)
B
{{B-Class}}
Mostly complete, without POV or other major cleanup issues, but which requires further work to reach Good Article standards. Should meet the six B-Class criteria. A typical reader should learn something. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is usually needed here. Jammu and Kashmir (Oct. 2007) is useful but needs more content and references.
C
{{C-Class}}
Moderately complete, and may lack sources or contain cleanup tags. Useful to a casual reader, but a serious reader would need more. Considerable editing is still needed, to fill gaps in content or address cleanup issues. Exeter Cathedral (July 2008) covers the basics well but needs more. Weak on refs., style issues.
Start
{{Start-Class}}
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and lacks reliable sources. Useful to some, provides more than a little information, but many readers will need more. Much editing and content is needed, not a complete article. Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}
A very basic description of the topic. Possibly useful. It might be just a dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

This table shows assessments of an article by the general Wikipedia community. These are given to articles that pass Wikipedia-wide processes.

Community-based article progress assessments [ ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
FA
{{FA-Class}}
Article has "Featured article" status, and meets these standards. Outstanding, thorough article. Updates and minor copyedits. Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
FL
{{FL-Class}}
Article has "Featured lists" status, and meets these criteria. Outstanding, thorough list. Updates and minor copyedits. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
GA
{{GA-Class}}
Article has Good article status, and meets good article standards. Useful to nearly all readers, no obvious problems, but other encyclopedias may do a better job. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful. International Space Station (as of February 2007)

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. Of these, only List-Class is tracked by the bot. In no particular order:

Other WikiProject assessments [ ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
List
{{List-Class}}
An article that meets the definition of a Stand-alone List. It should contain many wikilinks, with descriptions. There is no one way to make a list, but it should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists can be anything from a stub to a Featured List. List of aikidoka (as of June 2007)
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)
Needed
{{Needed-Class}}
An article page that should exist, but does not. The page does not exist or is a redirect. An appropriate article should be created on the subject. Lake effect (as of April 2007)
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. Square knot (as of November 2006)

Assessment description

[edit]

This table provides more detailed descriptions for the main assessment levels.

Article progress grading scheme [ ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
FA
{{FA-Class}}
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
FL
{{FL-Class}}
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A
{{A-Class}}
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Durian (as of March 2007)
GA
{{GA-Class}}
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B
{{B-Class}}
Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. The article contains most of the material about the topic, and may be regarded as a complete article. It is broad in its coverage, while staying focused on the topic. This article has engaging, well-presented prose, although it may have a few gaps in style, citations, and clarity. The article should meet the six B-Class criteria, and it must not contain copyright, neutrality or original research issues. The article is illustrated where appropriate with images that comply with copyright guidelines. A well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should fall in this category. Useful to the majority of casual readers, and provides detailed, clear and accessible prose, with a minimum of jargon. Gives a nice explanation to most readers, but technical content may be inadequate for serious students or researchers trying to use the material for derivative purposes. Some editing is still needed, including filling small gaps or correcting small policy and style errors. May be improved by input from experts to assess where coverage is still missing, and also by illustrations, historical background and further references. Articles in this category may benefit from external review from the Good article nomination process. Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and references.
C
{{C-Class}}
Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. Exeter Cathedral (as of July 2008) covers the basics well but needs more content. Problems with lack of refs., style issues.
Start
{{Start-Class}}
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage. Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

Combined table

[edit]

This table combines the short examples with more substantial criteria explanations. It transcludes the FA, FL and GA criteria straight from their respective pages, to match the B-Class criteria we've just created (which are great, BTW Titoxd!). I've redefined the fourth column as "editing guidelines", which I think is more useful: we don't want to be focusing on what editors 'see', but rather where editors should be going. Just some ideas. Happymelon 15:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of an article - an example

[edit]

This example of the article "Atom" may help demonstrate the typical profile for an article's development through the levels. Click on the numbers to see the version at that time.

The article started as a stub on Oct 1, 2001.By 8 Oct, 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; there is a meaningful amount of information - but it needs more structuring.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 comfortably called C-class.12 Dec 2005, enough content & structure for a respectable article. In spite of its lack of in-line citation, 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 contents and refs have been added, easily B-class.Oct 17 2007, nominated for a Peer Review.Review closes on Feb 9, 2007, after addressing MoS/inline cite issues, becomes A.Feb 10, 2007, nominated and listed as GA.Feb 12, 2008, FAC, and promoted to FA Feb 17.
  • The article started as a stub [[1]] on Oct 1, 2001.
  • By 8 October, 2001 it received some additions and approached the upper bound of the definition of stub: [[2]]
  • On 20 September 2002, the article was enriched with some more information and it moves into start class: [[3]]
  • The version as of 3 June 2004 [[4]] is still in start class. There is a meaningful amount of information - but it needs further structuring improvement.
  • On 24 June 2004, the article receives another important addition - a useful image. It has reached the upper bound of start class, but still not good enough to get a C-class rating: [[5]].
  • On 18 September 2004, the article looks like this: [[6]]. Some of the sections have expanded and now it barely meets the C-class requirements.
  • By 31 August 2005 the article has been expanded further and can now be comfortably called a C-class article: [[7]]. The article's major shortcoming is in referencing.
  • The version of 12 December 2005 [[8]] has enough content and structure of a respectable article. In spite of its lack of in-line citation, the article is approaching the upper limit of C-Class. If it were properly referenced, we could have considered rating it B-class.
  • After addition of several new images and contents from a book (now cited), the article looks like this [[9]] on 19 August 2006. Though some editors would still hesitate to rate it B-Class, due to its lack of in-line citation; content wise it deserves a B-Class.
  • By 23 March 2007 [[10]] new contents and references have been added and the article would now safely pass a B-class assessment by any editor.
  • The October 17 2007 version of the article: [[11]] is nominated for a Peer Review. Review closes on February 9, 2007 leaving the article like this: [[12]]. The review ensures completeness of the content, addresses many MoS issues and inline citation problems and upgrades the article to A-class.
  • Next day [[13]] the article is nominated and listed as GA.
  • On February 12, 2008 the article was nominated for FA and this version of the article: [[14]] (as of 17 February 2008) was promoted.