Wikipedia:WikiProject Formula One/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on Formula One, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Formula One related articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 programme.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Formula One}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Formula One articles by quality and Category:Formula One articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.


See also the general assessment FAQ.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Formula One}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Formula One}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. 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). However, all of our child project articles should have template on the article as they fall under our scope.
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Formula One WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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.
8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
People at Wikipedia:Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page.
9. 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.
10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
11. 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 go to the main project discussion page.


An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Formula One}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Formula One|class=??? | importance=??? }}

The following values for the class parameter may be used:

The following values for the importance parameter may be used:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Formula One articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Formula One articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Quality scaleEdit

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible. Brabham (as of July 2015)
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered FA-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for FA-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Monaco Grand Prix (as of July 2015)
The article is mostly complete, without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria: No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. Nigel Mansell (as of July 2015)
The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. 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 address cleanup issues. Ron Dennis (as of July 2015)
An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. Michael Andretti (as of July 2015)
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to FA-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Fred Agabashian (as of July 2015)

Importance scaleEdit

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. Formula One
High Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Damon Hill
Mid Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Argentine Grand Prix
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Simtek

For some of the more numerous types of articles, the following guidelines have been agreed:

Article type Top High Mid Low
Drivers Multiple world championships World champions or
10+ wins or
Current driver
2+ wins or 10+ podiums Others
Constructors Multiple championships Current constructor or
5+ wins
1+ wins or 5+ podiums Others
Cars Exceptional historical importance Championship winner Race winner Other
GPs Ever-present Other current Former/Future Non-championship only
Circuits Exceptional historical importance Current circuits Past circuits of current GPs
Race reports Exceptional historical importance
(e.g. '50 British, '94 San Marino)
High historical importance
(e.g. 2004 Belgian - Schumacher's 7th title win)
Some historical importance
(title wins, record breakers)
Seasons 1950 and current season Future seasons only


Current statusEdit

Requests for assessmentEdit

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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

Add new requests above


The full log of assessment changes for the past seven days can be viewed here:

September 25, 2020Edit


September 24, 2020Edit


September 22, 2020Edit


September 21, 2020Edit


September 19, 2020Edit