MyWiki:WikiProject Merge/Assessment
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Merge! This department focuses on assessing Wikipedia's merge related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. You are encouraged to add the project talk page template and boldly rate the merge related article yourself. If there is a dispute about a merge you may bring it to the assessment page for discussion.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Merge Copied}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Merge articles by quality and Category:Merge articles by importance.
Frequently asked questions
[edit source]- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Merge WikiProject 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, 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!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
Instructions
[edit source]Quality assessments
[edit source]An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Merge}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
| FA | (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class Merge articles category) | File:Featured article star.svg FA | |
|---|---|---|---|
| GA | (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class Merge articles category) | File:Symbol support vote.svg GA | |
| B | (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class Merge articles category) | B | |
| C | (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class Merge articles category) | C | |
| Start | (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class Merge articles category) | Start | |
| Stub | (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class Merge articles category) | Stub | |
| ??? | (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed Merge articles category) | ??? |
After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Merge articles with comments.
The attention parameter is used to identify articles where immediate attention is needed. It is used in the form:
- {{WikiProject UK|class=|importance=|attention=yes}}
- attention=yes (adds articles to Category:United Kingdom articles needing attention).
Quality scale
[edit source]| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| File:Featured article star.svg 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:{{Wikipedia:Featured article criteria}}
|
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) |
| File:Featured article star.svg 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:{{Wikipedia: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. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
| File:Symbol a class.svg 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:
{{Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria|raw=yes}} |
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) |
| File:Symbol support vote.svg 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
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria}}
|
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. | Everybody Wants to Rule the World (as of October 2025) |
| 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
{{Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria|raw=yes}}
|
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:
|
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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. | Gravel (as of January 2006) |
| 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 |
Importance assessment
[edit source]An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Merge Copied}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Merge Copied| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance Merge articles
- High - adds articles to Category:High-importance Merge articles
- Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Merge articles
- Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance Merge articles
Importance scale
[edit source]| Label | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Top | Core topics about the merging process or project pages. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main article, vital for the understanding of the project's scope or extremely notable to the subject outside of the project. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members. This might also be highly merged articles with multiple "copied" and afd merger tags, history of merge discussions and disputes. | |
| High | Topics that are very notable within the project as well as tagged articles with merged content and a history of merge proposals. | |
| Mid | Topics that are reasonably notable to the project itself and/or have been merged to or from. | |
| Low | Topics of mostly local interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial topics. This would also include articles that have been proposed as merge without being carried out. These may not be considered worthy of a project template. Local consensus rules. |
Requesting an assessment
[edit source]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.