Wikipedia:Content assessment

This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline.

Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. Substantive edits to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this guideline's talk page.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Anyone can add a quality assessment below GA-class, regardless of WikiProjects. Higher ratings require more formal processes and consensus.

The following system is used to assess the quality of a Wikipedia article. The system is based on a letter scheme that reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though language quality and layout are also factors.

The quality assessments are mainly performed by Wikipedia editors, who tag Talk pages of articles; some bots set the class tag for assessment based on other Talk tags or based on editor selected values. Editor assistance tools like Rater apply automated ORES or Lift Wing article assessments, offering a prediction based on structural characteristics of the page (e.g. sectioning and references) that correlate with quality, for the class tag. These tags are then collected by a bot, which generates output such as a log and statistics. For more information, see Using the bot. In 2023, project-independent quality assessments were introduced, so editors only have to rate an article once and it applies to all associated projects.

Most grades are assessed by individual editors according to the criteria on this page. Generally speaking, all editors, including editors who have written or improved an article, are encouraged to boldly set any quality rating that they believe is appropriate, except for the GA, FA, and A-class ratings. GAs (Good Articles) are generally reviewed by a single independent editor after a nomination at WP:Good article nominations. FAs (Featured Articles) are reviewed by several editors at WP:Featured article candidates. Be aware that a few projects have opted out of the standard quality scale, and use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment.

It is vital that editors not take these assessments of their contributions personally. It is understood that we each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. If there is disagreement over the quality rating of an article, then it should be discussed on the article's talk page.

As of August 2024, over eight million articles have been assessed. Several other languages are also using this assessment system or a derivative thereof.

Grades

The assessment ratings mentioned here have no relationship whatsoever to grading in education or review scores like A/B/C/D/F or other rating systems (10-point scale, 5-star system, etc.) that you might see on homework and product reviews. They represent the amount of work needed to bring the article to the next rating, which depends on both the quality of the writing and the depth of coverage of the topic, which greatly varies by subject.

Note that the differences between Stub, Start, and C classes are fairly subjective; at those ratings, the best way to improve the article is to look at the specific criteria for B-Class and aim to satisfy those. Specific feedback can often be obtained on a relevant WikiProject's talk page. Those can usually be found on the talk page of the article, but searching for them can often reveal more topical projects. For instance, if you wrote about a Kenyan astronomer, you might want to search for "Biography", "Kenya", and "Astronomy" to find WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Kenya and WikiProject Astronomy.

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; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. 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 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.	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
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: 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 and includes at minimum eight items; 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. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018)
FM	Pictures that have attained featured picture status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. More detailed criteria A featured picture: Is of a high technical standard. It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance. It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here. Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements. Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed.^[1] Is of high resolution. It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height (1500×1500px); larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred. Further information on image size can be found here. Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration. Note that vector graphics in SVG format omit any requirement for any pixel count. Animations and video may be somewhat smaller. Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative. A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide. commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:File copyright tags. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. The image is used in one or more articles.^[2] It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image. A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.^[3] Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English. A complete file description: Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable. Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other medium. Geotagging photographs of identifiable places is encouraged. This entails providing the coordinates of where the camera was when the medium was recorded to an appropriate degree of precision no less than ~10 km² (see Commons:Geocoding, or Template:Coord if the image is hosted on the English Wikipedia). States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc). It is suggested that additional relevant information that becomes known during the course of the nomination be subsequently included in the file description. May include languages other than English but there must be an English version available that meets this criterion. The file name may be in a language other than English. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive. Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text. Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable. Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.	The page contains a featured image, sound clip or other media-related content.	Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited.	File:American World War II senior military officials, 1945.JPEG (as of January 2012)
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 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 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; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or 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 non-free 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 (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.	Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019)
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 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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. 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.	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: 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.	Ball (as of September 2014)
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

Note: Some WikiProjects omit some of the standard classes, most often A-Class, especially when they lack an assessment team.

Non-standard grades

Shortcut

WP:NONSTANDARDCLASS

Some WikiProjects use other assessments for mainspace content that do not fit into the above scale:

Other WikiProject assessments
Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
Future	A topic for which details are subject to change often. The article covers a future topic, e.g., a forthcoming election or album release, and article content may change as new information arises.	Amount of meaningful content varies over time as the projected event draws near.	Material added might be speculative and should be carefully sourced.	Next United Kingdom general election (as of October 2019)
SIA	Any set index article (SIA) page falls under this class. These are List articles about a set of items of a specific type that also share the same (or similar) name.	The page lists related items of the same name.	An SIA need not follow the formatting rules for disambiguation pages	USS Yorktown (as of May 2018)
Disambig	Any disambiguation page falls under this class.	The page directs the reader to other pages of the same title.	Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created.	Jackson (as of August 2019)
Redirect	Any redirect falls under this class.	The page does not display any article content and redirects to a related topic.	Ensure that the redirect is appropriately categorized.	American breakfast (as of October 2016)
Needed	May be used to identify redirects that could be expanded into articles, or articles with content that could be split off to form a new page.	Content may not yet exist for the desired topic.	Editors are encouraged to be bold when updating the encyclopedia.	Free City of Mainz (as of March 2018)
NA	A page that does not fit into any other category. Used as a "catch-all" by all WikiProjects.	Depends on the type of page.	Depends on the type of page.	N/A

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment which utilises a parallel scheme of "CL-Class", "BL-Class" and "AL-Class" for list articles.

Non-mainspace content

Further grades are commonly used by WikiProjects to categorize relevant pages in other namespaces. The precise application of these grades may vary depending on their usage by individual WikiProjects.

Non-mainspace assessments
Label	Criteria	Example
Category	Any category falls under this class.	Category:George Orwell
Draft	Any draft falls under this class. These are typically found in the Draft namespace, but may also be in the User namespace.	Draft:Example
File	Any file falls under this class; may also include timed text pages.	File:Flag of Australia.svg
Portal	Any portal falls under this class.	Portal:Biography
Project	Any project page falls under this class; may also include help pages.	Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan
Template	Any template falls under this class; may also include modules or userboxes.	Template:Magnapop
User	Any user page falls under this class.	User:Legoktm/afcnew.js

Note that some WikiProjects deal exclusively with non-mainspace content and may use their own customised assessment schemes tailored to a specific purpose: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals/Assessment for one such example.

For an index of all WikiProject assessment pages, see Category:WikiProject assessments.

Evolution of an article – an example

This clickable imagemap, using the article "Atom" as an example, demonstrates the typical profile for an article's development through the levels. Hold the mouse over a number to see key events, and click on a number to see that version of the article. Please note that until 2008, a C-Class rating did not exist on the project, and as such this grading is retroactive. Also, in 2006 references were much less used, and inline references were quite rare; a barely-B-Class article today would typically have many more references than this article did in late 2006.

Importance assessment

There is a separate scale for rating articles for importance or priority, which is unrelated to the quality scale outlined here. Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope. See also the template {{importance scheme}}.

Statistics

The WP 1.0 bot tracks assessment data (article quality and importance data for individual WikiProjects) assigned via talk page banners. If you would like to add a new WikiProject to the bot's list, please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot.

The global summary table below is computed by taking the highest quality and importance rating for each assessed article in the main namespace.

All rated articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	???	Total
FA	1,577	2,507	2,420	1,964	181	8,649
FL	181	688	771	704	100	2,444
A	371	680	788	583	91	2,513
GA	3,251	7,393	14,836	19,777	1,761	47,018
B	17,031	33,068	54,811	70,256	23,594	198,760
C	17,030	54,522	136,494	314,851	92,803	615,700
Start	18,536	92,598	417,549	1,638,746	414,510	2,581,939
Stub	4,269	31,403	277,656	2,810,835	762,086	3,886,249
List	4,916	17,324	54,528	198,755	72,390	347,913
Assessed	67,162	240,183	959,853	5,056,471	1,367,516	7,691,185
Unassessed	122	481	1,237	16,715	402,277	420,832
Total	67,284	240,664	961,090	5,073,186	1,769,793	8,112,017

About this table

FAQ

Purpose

What is the purpose of article assessments?: The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
Are these ratings official?: Not really; these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.

Assessing articles

Who can assess articles?: In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, assessing an article as "A-Class" generally requires the agreement of at least two editors, and the "GA" and "FA" labels should be used only on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes.
How do I assess an article?: Consult the quality scale above; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, go to the article's talk page and set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use |class=B in the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless they are currently designated as such. Tools in the See also section can help with the assessment process.
How can I ask for an article to be assessed?: To have an independent editor review an article, post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Requesting an assessment.

Common concerns

Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject'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 article's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article). See Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article tagging for more information.
What if I don't agree with a rating?: Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
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!
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?: 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. Wikipedia:Peer review is the process designed to provide detailed comments.