Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Assessment
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Horror. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's fictional horror related articles. 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 {{WikiProject Horror}} talk page project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Horror articles by quality and Category:Horror articles by importance, which serve as the sources for an automatically generated worklist.
Frequently asked questions
[edit]- How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
- Just add {{WikiProject Horror}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- Someone put a {{WikiProject Horror}} template on an article, but it's not a horror related article. What should I do?
- If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of WikiProject Horror is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- 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.
- 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. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
- Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system WP:1.0 have been able to devise.
- How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
- A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here.
- What if I have a question not listed here?
- If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can ask them on the main project general forum page, or contact one of the other members directly.
Instructions
[edit]An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Horror}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
| FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class horror articles) |  FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class horror articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class horror articles) |  GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class horror articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class horror articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class horror articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class horror articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class horror articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class horror articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
| Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class horror articles) | Category | |
| Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class horror articles) | Disambig | |
| Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class horror articles) | Draft | |
| File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class horror articles) | File | |
| Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class horror articles) | Portal | |
| Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class horror articles) | Project | |
| Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class horror articles) | Redirect | |
| Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class horror articles) | Template | |
| NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class horror articles) | NA | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed horror articles) | ??? |
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed horror articles.
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Horror}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Horror|importance=???}}
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):
| Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance horror articles) | Top | |
| High (adds articles to Category:High-importance horror articles) | High | |
| Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance horror articles) | Mid | |
| Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance horror articles) | Low | |
| NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance horror articles) | NA | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance horror articles) | ??? |
The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA and should be omitted in those cases. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance horror articles.
Quality scale
[edit]The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.
| 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.
|
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. | Vampire (as of September 2010) |
| 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:
|
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. | N/A |
| 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. | Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin (as of March 2010) |
| 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:
|
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. | Resident Evil (film) (as of July 2010) |
| 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. | A Nightmare on Elm Street (as of May 2010) |
| 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. | Zombie (as of October 2010) |
| 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. | Alone in the Dark (as of April 2010) |
| 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. | Comedy horror (as of March 2010) |
| 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 minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters (as of December 2010) |
These criteria apply to general-content articles. The style guidelines provides additional guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.
Each horror-related article has its assessment included within the {{WikiProject Horror}} template, such as {{WikiProject Horror|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Horror articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.
B-Class criteria
[edit]Special emphasis is given to the six criteria that B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet:
| B |
|
Importance scale
[edit]The criteria used for rating article importance are meant to be a probable indication of how significant the topic is to fictional horror on a whole, and how likely it would be covered in a serious encyclopedia. Hence, for example, Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart" would be ranked higher than Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire or Stephen King's Insomnia and Nosferatu would be ranked higher than Bram Stoker's Dracula or Sleepaway Camp.
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.
| Label | Criteria | Examples in film | Examples in literature |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top | Subject is a "core" topic for horror as a field. Should be articles necessary to understanding the genre (and its evolution) as a whole. | Nosferatu Psycho |
Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart" H. P. Lovecraft's "The Call of Cthulhu" |
| High | Subject is very notable or significant within the field of horror and is of interest to those outside of the field. | Halloween A Nightmare on Elm Street |
Robert Bloch's Psycho Stephen King's Firestarter |
| Mid | Subject is notable or significant within the field of horror, but not necessarily outside of the field. | Black Christmas Suspiria |
Ira Levin's Rosemary's Baby Brian Keene's The Rising |
| Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of horror, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage in relation to some other notable article. | Death Spa Zombie 5: Killing Birds |
R. L. Stine's Creepy Creatures Robert D. San Souci's Dare to Be Scared |
Requests for assessment
[edit]If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below at the bottom of the list. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.
To assess an article, simply update the WikiProject Horror template on the article's talk page. Please also strike out the request on this page by using the <s>Strike-through text</s> command and add a rationale for your assessment. Don't forget to sign your username after your comment.
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre— What would be the appropriate rating to give this article? It seems to be a pretty notable film in terms of it's cultural and historical significance in the Horror genre. --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)- I've assessed it as High, but you should nominate it for Top, which can be done here. hornoir (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The Orphanage (2007 film)— Should this film perhaps be rated higher then Low? It won several Goya Awards in it's Native Spain and was presented at the Canned Film Festival with acclaim (rare for a genre film let alone a horror film there). The article was called by the Toronto Star as "The year's best horror picture" and made several top ten lists including The New Yorker. That could at least make it Mid-importance I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)- I assessed it at Low, but that might be my personal bias; I just don't envision it having any lasting importance to the genre. If someone thinks a better assessment is in order, I won't dispute it. hornoir (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I just think it's more important and relevant then another Low-class Horror article such as Maneater. ;) I think horror films from this decade that got a good amount of critical praise should be at least rated mid. Such as 28 Days Later, The Descent, Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary, Ginger Snaps, Grindhouse, The Host, Let the Right One In, The Orphanage, The Others and Shaun of the Dead should be considered at least mid-importance as they are some of the most critically praised films of the genre in the decade.
- I assessed it at Low, but that might be my personal bias; I just don't envision it having any lasting importance to the genre. If someone thinks a better assessment is in order, I won't dispute it. hornoir (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Alien (Alien franchise)Deserves a rating. Eoghan1234 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)- The article appears to meet all B-Class criteria, so I've assessed it as such. I placed an importance of High on it as well, as I think the average person would expect the article to exist. hornoir (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.This time the quality: a lot has been done to the article over the past several months, and I'd think it'd be a good candidate to be A-class status. It may not be quite at FA status yet, but I think it could be an A-class article.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film)I agree, start class is correct, but for the importance, I say it deserves a top or high rating ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)- Top or high? This film isn't even out yet. What makes it more important to the genre then any other horror remake? I'd rate it low or maybe even mid myself. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)I went through checklist, met B-Class criteria correctly ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Constantine (film): Previously rated as start class. I've been working immensely to improve the quality of this article. I request for a review as to the current class on the quality scale. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Space Gun (video game): Previously rated as Stub class. I have been working on this horror game page for a little while and feel it's quality has been improved enough to be reviewed. It could be increased to C or B-class. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)- This was assessed as C-class. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
- J. Vernon Shea - I came across this friend and protégé of HPL and Klarkash-Ton redlinked in Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography, so I've done the best I could for him with the resources I could find, but the fullest bio (an in memoriam by writers like L. Sprague de Camp, Robert Bloch, and Donald Wandrei) is out of my reach, no closer than Austin TX, and I'm going public to get more hands involved since it's still bare bones in bio details. Thanks! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
The Human Centipede (First Sequence):A start-class article on a horror film I have been working on in collaboration with some other editors. We've got a fair bit of information about the film, all well written and all well referenced, and have some images with alt texts. I believe it may now meet B class criteria or if not at least C class and would like it to be assessed based upon the quality scale. Thanks. Coolug (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)Saw VI: Already received a B class in WikiProject Films. Would like someone from here to take a look. Thanks. -Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)- Space Gun (video game): has now achieved B-Class on project video games, requesting an assessment at this project as well. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Resident Evil: Degeneration - Currently "start class". Requesting evaluation and possible upgrade to B-class.-- OsirisV (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Don't Look Now– Needs to be allocated B class status. Also, since I'm currently working on this article any suggestions to get it up to GA status would be appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)- Now a GA. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- Constantine (film) - Requesting re-assessment of this article currently rated as C-Class. Any tips on raising it's status further would be appreciated. Thanks. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Final Destination - The article is already a GA nominee. However, it is rated as C-class in the quality scale, while it has no rating at all in the importance scale. In my opinion, Final Destination must be rated as High-importance for the following reasons: a) The film started the franchise which was considered as a standard example of the splatter film genre during this decade; b) The film's respective franchise gathered $497 million worldwide as of June 2011, earning more revenue than the Halloween franchise (which grossed only $366 million); and c) The film won the Saturn Award for Best Horror Film in 2000. Not only that, the article at least meets the standard of B-class in the quality scale. Reassessment in this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! FDJoshua22 13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)- Kaneto Shindō - Currently being rewritten and expanded, but just curious if this group is interested in him.--66.212.78.220 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- The_Ghost_Pirates - Added synopsis of the novel as well as brief overview of literary and thematic elements. I'm not sure the article still qualifies as a Stub. I would be happy to add more content if it is felt it would significantly improve the article. Sifukurt (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Georges Méliès - Requesting an assessment for B article status.--206.188.36.84 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
- Something Upstairs - added a detailed synopsis of the book then simplified some of it, I believe it's much better than the stub it used to be a year ago. AngusWOOF (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ernest Dickerson- I've recently updated this page, trying to bring up Dickerson's horror oriented projects (but without a special/dedicated section that would have been counter-intuitive IMHO; advices from the Project Horror team are welcome by the way). In any case, considering that the Dickerson directed episode finale of The Walking Dead was such a rating success, the importance scale might be re-assessed here. -Arch (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- Louis Feuillade - Just wondering if this group was interested. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Dementia (film)I've expanded this article, adding various infos with sources, which should lift it above its current stub status. - Robert Kerber (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)- You were talking about Dementia (1955 film), maybe moved since then, correct? @Robert Kerber.
Done -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Mushy Yank Goodness, 10 years ago, I had completely forgotten about my contributions in the meantime. Thanks, anyway. Robert Kerber (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
- You were talking about Dementia (1955 film), maybe moved since then, correct? @Robert Kerber.
- All the Boys Love Mandy Lane — have added a great deal of information, including cast and characters, production information, critical reception, and the film's release history and soundtrack. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
- Alice Johnson – Pretty sure this isn't a redirect like it is currently listed--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- The Vampire Diaries – Most of the stuff on the page now has redirects which was the only thing missing on the last evaluation. Maybe its time to reevaluate it--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Our Lady of the Inferno - I've made significant edits since the page was first assessed, and would like both to see if it's moved into C or even maybe B status and what needs to be done to help improve it further. Captbloodrock (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- Gothic double I have expanded this article from a stub - while it is not about a specific horror text, I have included information about a variety of Gothic horror novels, films and short stories which use the double motif. Please let me know if this article is suitable for this WikiProject, and if so I would really appreciate an assessment. Thank you! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Statistics
[edit]Current status
[edit]| Horror articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
| FA
|
2 | 11 | 11 | 45 | 69 | ||
| FL
|
3 | 16 | 19 | ||||
| A
|
1 | 1 | |||||
| GA
|
8 | 26 | 84 | 305 | 19 | 442 | |
| B | 19 | 57 | 80 | 237 | 52 | 445 | |
| C | 20 | 106 | 235 | 1,180 | 262 | 1,803 | |
| Start | 9 | 92 | 344 | 4,707 | 1,953 | 7,105 | |
| Stub | 9 | 37 | 2,001 | 1,437 | 3,484 | ||
| List | 2 | 5 | 14 | 240 | 40 | 301 | |
| Category | 1,688 | 1,688 | |||||
| Disambig | 22 | 22 | |||||
| File | 9 | 150 | 159 | ||||
| Portal | 2 | 2 | |||||
| Project | 59 | 59 | |||||
| Redirect | 1 | 1 | 8 | 340 | 1,188 | 1,538 | |
| Template | 229 | 229 | |||||
| NA | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Other | 1 | 118 | 119 | ||||
| Assessed | 61 | 307 | 816 | 9,082 | 3,457 | 3,763 | 17,486 |
| Unassessed | 6 | 6 | |||||
| Total | 61 | 307 | 816 | 9,082 | 3,457 | 3,769 | 17,492 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 65,861 | Ω = 4.93 | |||||
Historical count
[edit]- Historical counts for the overall project. All figures are taken from the end of each quarter.
| Quality | July 2006 | October 2006 | January 2007 | April 2007 | July 2007 | October 2007 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA
|
7 | 0.52% | 9 | 0.58% | 10 | 0.55% | 12 | 0.58% | 16 | 0.75% | 17 | 0.72% |
| FL
|
Featured List-Class did not exist yet | |||||||||||
| A
|
0 | 0% | 2 | 0.13% | 2 | 0.11% | 2 | 0.1% | 2 | 0.09% | 3 | 0.13% |
| GA
|
2 | 0.15% | 8 | 0.52% | 11 | 0.61% | 14 | 0.67% | 15 | 0.7% | 18 | 0.77% |
| B | 0 | 0% | 72 | 4.64% | 96 | 5.32% | 100 | 4.81% | 146 | 6.8% | 159 | 6.76% |
| C | C-Class did not exist yet | |||||||||||
| Start | 0 | 0% | 366 | 23.58% | 470 | 26.07% | 491 | 23.64% | 763 | 35.54% | 822 | 34.96% |
| Stub | 0 | 0% | 492 | 31.7% | 702 | 38.94% | 836 | 40.25% | 1205 | 56.12% | 1299 | 55.25% |
| List | List-Class did not exist yet | |||||||||||
| Assessed | 9 | 0.67% | 949 | 61.15% | 1291 | 71.6% | 1455 | 70.05% | 2147 | 100% | 2318 | 98.6% |
| Unassessed | 1336 | 99.33% | 603 | 38.85% | 512 | 28.4% | 622 | 29.95% | 0 | 0% | 33 | 1.4% |
| Total | 1345 | 1552 | 1803 | 2077 | 2147 | 2351 | ||||||
| Quality | January 2008 | April 2008 | July 2008 | October 2008 | January 2009 | April 2009 | ||||||
| FA
|
16 | 0.67% | 21 | 0.86% | 22 | 0.89% | 22 | 0.87% | 22 | 0.84% | 29 | 0.93% |
| FL
|
Featured List-Class did not exist yet | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | 0 | 0% | |||
| A
|
1 | 0.04% | 1 | 0.04% | 1 | 0.04% | 1 | 0.04% | 1 | 0.04% | 2 | 0.06% |
| GA
|
24 | 1% | 28 | 1.15% | 31 | 1.25% | 32 | 1.27% | 43 | 1.64% | 53 | 1.7% |
| B | 165 | 6.89% | 164 | 6.71% | 167 | 6.73% | 113 | 4.48% | 111 | 4.24% | 116 | 3.72% |
| C | C-Class did not exist yet | 12 | 0.48% | 18 | 0.69% | 37 | 1.19% | |||||
| Start | 830 | 34.64% | 832 | 34.06% | 838 | 33.78% | 896 | 35.53% | 916 | 35.02% | 1142 | 36.6% |
| Stub | 1333 | 55.63% | 1326 | 54.28% | 1328 | 53.53% | 1348 | 53.45% | 1381 | 52.79% | 1597 | 51.19% |
| List | 23 | 0.96% | 24 | 0.98% | 24 | 0.97% | 26 | 1.03% | 26 | 0.99% | 31 | 0.99% |
| Assessed | 2392 | 99.83% | 2396 | 98.08% | 2411 | 97.18% | 2450 | 97.15% | 2518 | 96.25% | 3007 | 96.38% |
| Unassessed | 4 | 0.17% | 47 | 1.92% | 70 | 2.82% | 72 | 2.85% | 98 | 3.75% | 113 | 3.62% |
| Total | 2396 | 2443 | 2481 | 2522 | 2616 | 3120 | ||||||
Assessment log
[edit]The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; due to its size (ca 100 kB), it cannot be transcluded directly.