WikiProject Philosophy

Welcome to the assessment department of the Philosophy WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Philosophy 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.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Philosophy}}
project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Philosophy articles by quality and Category:Philosophy articles by importance.

Current status edit

Philosophy task force assessment statistics


Frequently asked questions edit

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 Philosophy 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

Quality assessments edit

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Philosophy}} project banner on its talk page:


The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Philosophy articles)   FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Philosophy articles)   A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Philosophy articles)   GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Philosophy articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Philosophy articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Philosophy articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Philosophy articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Philosophy articles)   FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Philosophy articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Philosophy articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Philosophy articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Philosophy articles) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Philosophy articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Philosophy articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Philosophy articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Philosophy articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Philosophy articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Philosophy articles) ???

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:Philosophy articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

Quality scale edit

Importance assessment edit

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{Philosophy}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Philosophy| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Importance scale edit

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about philosophy. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Philosophy article. A reader who is not involved in the philosophy field will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. No biographies of individual philosophers are included at this level. Philosophy, Epistemology, Ethics, Medieval philosophy
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding philosophy. A reader who is not involved in the philosophy field will likely recognize the subject matter and have some familiarity with the topic. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand philosophy. Articles about individuals known for philosophy by the general public will be rated at this level. Aristotle, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Pragmatism, Applied ethics
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of philosophy. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand philosophy. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Articles about most significant individuals in the history of philosophy will be rated in this level. Divine command theory, Embodied cognition, David Lewis, Judith Butler, Hypatia
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of philosophy. Few readers outside the philosophy field or that are not philosophy students may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of philosophy, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of philosophy. Cyrenaics, Bohr–Einstein debates, Lambda calculus

Requesting an assessment edit

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 at the bottom below.

  • On Bullshit article, the stub tag was removed but an updated assessment has not been given. Could someone please assess the article. 451blue (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Appeal to the stone article, the stub tag has been removed but major changes have been made on this article. Could someone please assess this article? Thank you! Covidking (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Empirical limits in science article, the stub tag was removed and changes have been made to the article, can someone assess please? Airstarfish (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has been revised with extensive reference to the scholarly literature. I don't know what class it should be, but it is certainly better than start-class. Suggestions for further improvement very much welcome. Many thanks! PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that B-class makes sense, there doesn't seem to be anything important missing and it looks well cited.(In the interests of full disclosure I've contributed a small bit to this article but I feel comfortable assessing it as B-class as I have not worked on the majority of it. I would not be eligible to perform a good article review though were it nominated for that). - car chasm (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerard Heymans: I expanded this article and added references. I think it is no longer a stub article.
  • Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire has been revised. I would like to see a reassessment of its importance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colin Murray Turbayne has been revised with additional credit references to scholarly articles, additional text regarding his biographical history and publications, photograph, and External links. The article is currently rated as a "Start" as of ten years ago but seem to have progressed further along and should be reassessed in light of these improvements since he is an internationally recognized scholar on the works of George Berkeley (whenever you have time). Many thanks and Happy Editing! (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]
    I think it meets all the B-class criteria, and it seems reasonably complete and well referenced. Nice work! - car chasm (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ciao Car Chasm --many thanks for your speedy assessment and kind compliments. It was a pleasure to assist in the development of this biography about one of my mentors at the University of Rochester. Turbayne's tireless research into the use and abuse of metaphorical epistemological constructs within ordinary language throughout the modern world in the 20th century gives new meaning to both the ancient philosophical adage from Lau-Tzu's ancient work the Tao Te Ching - To know that you do not know is best -- to think that you know when you do not know is a disease. Recognizing this disease as a disease is to be free of it , as well, of course, as the Socratic paradox: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.(Plato, Apology 22d), as well as Joseph Campbell's investigations into the evolution of mythology in his book The Masks of God It was a pleasure collaborating with you. Happy editing & Meliora! (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL[reply]
  • I have done some work on the article about Heidegger's Black Notebooks, and I'm wondering if it has yet escalated to the dizzy height of "Start" from Stub? I recognise that it is pretty much a backwater in the big scheme of things, but if anyone has a moment ... ? It is also still in need of much care and attention, but my name is featuring on the history list more than I am comfortable with, so I'm going to vacate the scene, so to speak, for a while. Dinkenfunkle 05:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it does, it's certainly longer than a normal stub, and it cites at least one reliable secondary source, so I've marked it start-class. Nice work! - car chasm (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Dinkenfunkle 23:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heidegger_Gesamtausgabe (collected works) after my success on the last item ... I've gone all WP:Bold and done some major copy-edits to this (EDIT: unrated list-rated) article, and I'm wondering if somebody could have a look, either to provide a rating/comment, or just to give me some feed back. I'm particulary wondering if the 'wall of text' that is the list of works broken up by section and volume is worth keeping at all? Thanks in advance Dinkenfunkle 23:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! I have been working on improving Paradox of tolerance. It was initially rated as C class and I would appreciate some external input on whether or not the improvements should bump it up a grade or two. Ddevault (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]