Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Assessment

The assessment area of WikiProject Books focuses on assessing the quality of articles within the WikiProject's scope. The resulting article ratings are used to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.

The ratings are done via inserting information into the {{WPBooks}} project banner, which causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Book articles by quality.

Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Books}} project banner on its talk page. Anyone may assess an article as stub, start, C or B in accordance with the grading scheme's assessment criteria. However, you must apply for the GA (Good Article) class at WP:GAN and the FA class at WP:FAC.

{{WikiProject Books
|class=
}}

{{WikiProject Books
|class=FA/GA/B/C/Start/Stub/NA
}}

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Book articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Request an assessment

For past assessments, see the archive.
If you are not comfortable assessing a particular article you may request another WikiProject member to assess it. Alternatively, you may list it here:

1. [[Example article]]. Additional info. ~~~~
2. Homosexuality: Disease or Way of Life?. This article was assessed as start-class by Mikeblas on March 21, 2015 but has been rewritten and greatly expanded since then. Requesting reassessment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Re-assessed as B-class [1] maclean (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Virtually Normal. This article was assessed as stub-class by SatyrTN on August 7, 2008 but has been greatly expanded since then. Requesting reassessment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Virtual Equality. This article was assessed as stub class on 20 July, 2012, by INeverCry, but has been significantly expanded since then. Requesting reassessment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
3. Marxism and the Oppression of Women. This article was rated as a stub in December 2012, but has been significantly expanded since then and is no longer a stub. Requesting reassessment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
4. The Foundations of Psychoanalysis. The article currently lacks an assessment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Assessed as B-class [2] maclean (talk) 05:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

1. Gay Science. The article currently lacks an assessment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
2. The Primal Scream. The article currently lacks an assessment. Requesting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
3. Signs of the Flesh. The article currently lacks an assessment. Requesting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
4. Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession. The article currently lacks an assessment. Requesting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
5. Hagarism. The article currently lacks an assessment. Requesting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
6. Sex and Reason. The article currently lacks an assessment. Requesting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
7. Ecology, community and lifestyle. The article currently lacks an assessment. Requesting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
8. Crito. I recently finished translating the article after it had turned out that it was plagiarized, so I believe a reassessment in in order. puggo (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
9. On Bullshit article, the stub tag was removed but an updated assessment has not been given. Could someone please assess the article. 451blue (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
10. The Tolkien Reader This article is rated start-class, but I have added a significant amount of information to it in the last month, so could someone please reassess it? I did this for a university assignment, and would really appreciate a reassessment. Thanks! --Hofendorf (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Assessment statistics

Book pages by quality
Quality
	Total
FA	69
FL	25
GA	337
B	552
C	1,949
Start	8,783
Stub	12,058
List	1,147
Category	6,892
Disambig	38
File	14,769
Portal	9
Project	25
Template	671
NA	1,144
Draft	75
Assessed	48,543
Unassessed	94
Total	48,637
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 126,433			Ω = 5.32

Quality operations

Quality operations: A bot-generated detail log for Book articles.

Popular pages

Popular pages: A bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles.

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

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. 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: 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. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.	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)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: 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. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (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. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. 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.	List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018)
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.	Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014)
GA	The article has attained good article status, having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is: Well written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equaling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	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.	Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. 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. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	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.	Human (as of April 2019)
C	The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much 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; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.	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 usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	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.	Ring-tailed cardinalfish (as of June 2018)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. Can be well-written, but may also have significant content issues. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; however, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.	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.	Crescent Falls (as of June 2018)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947 (as of June 2018)