MyWiki:WikiProject Technology/Assessment
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/Department navigation}} {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/sidebar}} The Assessment department finds technological articles and rate them on Quality scale.
The articles are rated by examining them and comparing them to the Quality scale. A template is then place on the article's talk page stating that the article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology and displaying what rating the article has been given when compared to the Quality scale.
Requests for assessment
[edit source]- Éolienne Bollée
- Rosalind Picard
- UE Boom
- Error concealment
- Prusa i3
- Ethernet
- Stereolithography
- Incremental encoder -- please reassess due to major rewrite and content expansion
- OnePlus Nord
- Asus ZenFone 6
- Lorgnette -- please assess this stub, feel like it should be at least a start
- Nuclear weapon design -- I am uncertain what the procedure is in this project. Over on Military History I could just downgrade it myself, but I don't know what you project's rules are. Either way, the article may have been B-class when reviewed many years ago, but now it is a mess with 98 citation needed by my count today. It is also awkwardly structured. Over on the Military History project I am looking for other editors to help rewrite the whole thing.Kylesenior (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Cryogenic gas plant
Technological articles can be found in Category:Technology and its subcategories
Template
[edit source]| WikiProject icon | Technology | |||
| ||||
Quality scale
[edit source]{{Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Quality}}
Simplified 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 |
Statistics
[edit source]Current status
[edit source]{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Technology articles by quality statistics}}
Log
[edit source]{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Technology articles by quality log}}
Requests for 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.
- VHS - Please assess this article for "B" grade. I've made some significant additions and changes. I think the article fulfills the criteria as a "B" article. Thank you! Groink (talk) 08:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Millenniata - Please assess this article for "B" grade. I rewrote it as NPoV. I believe the company itself is only notable for the M-DISC technology (a type of specialty DVD-R), but I'm not sure of the best way to handle that. Advice appreciated! —Hobart (talk) 01:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
- I noticed that in Talk:Fucking Machines that this unfortunate article has a Good Article status from this WikiProject. This status needs to be reconsidered and likely removed. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)