WikiProjects assess articles based on their importance and quality standards. Importance refers to how pertinent the article is to the scope and goals of WikiProject Writing. Quality refers to how complete an article is based on Wikipedia's content standards.
Be mindful that Wikipedia's editing base is made up entirely of volunteers with varying levels of expertise. If you see an assessment that doesn't look quite right, you can always bring it up on the WikiProject Writing discussion page for further insight from active WikiProject Writing participants.
How are articles assessed?
Quality assessments
Article quality is based on a partial letter-grade class system (See 'quality assessment rubric' for a full breakdown of each class). Content quality is somewhat standard across articles, but may contain some variation depending on the amount of reliable secondary sources available for use in the article. For example, articles on academic organizations may be much shorter or have fewer sections than foundational or field-specific topic articles due to the amount of sourcing available. The goal here is to figure out how well the article captures the sum of reliable knowledge available on the topic and how effectively it communicates this information to a public audience. Find out more about quality assessments here.
Importance assessments
Article importance is based on a low to top importance scale (See 'Importance assessment rubric' for a full breakdown of each tier). Article importance is specific to the field the article is a part of. Since WikiProjects encompass a wide range of fields on Wikipedia, those participants are the principle editors assessing importance. Since this is a fairly WikiProject-specific importance scale, WikiProjects often create their own importance assessments based on their scope and goals. WikiProject Writing has developed it's own importance scale, but if you would like to make changes or discuss a clarification, you can do so at the WikiProject Writing discussion page. Find out more about importance assessments here.
How do I find article assessments?
You can find article quality and importance assessments on the talk page of any Wikipedia article. At the top of the talk page, there will be a WikiProject banner(s) with a class and importance grade beneath a short description of the WikiProject. If there are multiple WikiProjects, you may need to click on the dropdown menu for each WikiProject to find their assessments. It is important to note that assessment may differ from project to project. For reference, here is an example of the WikiProject Writing banner:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Writing, a WikiProject interested in improving Wikipedia's coverage of content related to the fields of rhetoric, composition, technical communication, literacy, and language studies.WritingWikipedia:WikiProject WritingTemplate:WikiProject WritingWriting articles
This article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
NOTE: The quality and importance grades are omitted here. They will normally appear where the 'NA class' box is located.
How do I assess articles?
Articles can be assessed by adding the WikiProject Writing banner template to the talk page of an article and setting class and importance parameters. You can go about doing this through source editor in wikitext OR by using the Rater tool which allows you to add the banner in visual editor.
For a full step-by-step breakdown of both methods, use the tagging and assessing articles guide. This guide also goes over how to change preexisting quality and importance assessments.
How do I find articles in need of assessment?
Articles under the scope of WikiProject Writing are tracked using the WP 1.0 bot. The bot generates a table listing articles that have been assessed and unassessed. All articles with the WikiProject Writing banner are included in this table. Those that have been assessed are listed alongside their quality and importance classes or grades. You can find articles in need of assessment by clicking on the number next to 'unassessed' and selecting an article.
This table was developed by WikiProject Writing participants based on the importance level of articles under the scope of WikiProject Writing. If you are unclear about an assessment criteria or a specific article you're working on, you can start a discussion on theWikiProject Writing discussion page to gain clarity/consensus on a potential revision.
These are articles on field-specific topics that are of interest to, or have potential to affect, many average readers. Articles are high traffic, general interest, or represent content gaps in coverage of marginalized topics. Category:High-importance Writing articles
These are field-specific articles or articles that need field-specific sections within writing studies. They may or may not be commonly known outside of writing studies and associated fields. Category:Mid-importance Writing articles
This quality assessment criteria has been developed by WikiProject articles for creation as a standard guidelines for quality assessment. WikiProject Writing has placed article examples for several examples sections of the criteria, but we still need help improving articles to featured article status and featured list status.
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.
It is:
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
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;
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
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
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.
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.[under discussion]
Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
Comprehensiveness.
(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
(a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
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.
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.
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
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);
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.
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.
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.
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.
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
