Wikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near East/Assessment

Main pageCurationRecognized contentParticipantsTalk page

Overview

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?

The rating system allows us to monitor the quality of articles in our area, and prioritize editor time for working on these articles. It is also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program for static releases of Wikipedia content. These ratings are intended for internal use within the project, and do not necessarily constitute an official rating in any meaningful sense.

2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?

Just add {{WikiProject Ancient Near East}} to the top of the article's talk page.

3. Who can assess articles?

Any editor or member of the WikiProject, is free to add or change the rating of an article between stub, start, C and B classes. Editors do not need to be professional historians nor members of this WikiProject to assess articles within this range of classes. However, quality assignments higher than B-class cannot be made outside of the formal review process; this is because the GA and FA-class designations require significant attention to detail and consensus.

4. How do I rate an article?

Select from the quality scale, after reviewing in detail, the level that best matches the state of the article. Then add the rating onto the article, through the article's talk page project banner. Remember that quality ratings above B-class cannot be made unilaterally.

5. Can I request that someone else rate an article?

Absolutely. You can the issue on the WikiProject's talk page.

6. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?

Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we may be unable to leave a detailed rationale. 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. If you require written, detailed feedback on your article, you may like to consider using peer review.

7. What if I don't agree with a rating?

You are free to ask the original reviewer or any other member of the project to re-rate the article.

8. 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!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the talk page.

Criteria

Quality ratings:
FA	A	GA	B
C	Start	Stub	FL
List	FM	NA
Importance ratings:
Top	High	Mid	Low
Bottom	NA
Unassessed categories:
Unknown importance		Unknown quality

As do most WikiProjects, we assess our articles for Quality and Importance. Quality designations are made according to a set of generally-accepted criteria, which are summarised below. Lower quality designations are conferred by individual project members. Higher quality designations are conferred once the article has passed a peer review by the relevant Wikipedia-wide assessment systems (for GA-class or FA-class status).

Requests for assessment of an article into B-class or any lower rank may be made at the talk page of the WikiProject. You should not assess an article you have made substantial contributions to, because – self-evidently – it is less likely you will be able to fairly and accurately judge your own work.

It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. We each have our own opinions of the priorities of the objective criteria for a perfect article. Different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area.

Criteria for assessing quality on prose articles

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
FA	The article meets all the featured article criteria. Detailed 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. Reader's experience Article is professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	Featured article candidacy (FAC)	Palmyra (as of January 2016)
⇧	Suggestions for moving rating upwards: 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. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article.
GA	The article meets all the Good article criteria and has been externally reviewed against them. 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. Reader's experience Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not matching) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	Good article nomination	Sargonid dynasty (as of April 2020)
⇧	Suggestions for moving rating upwards: A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.
B	The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. 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. Reader's experience Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	Individual review	Achaemenid Empire (as of August 2020)
⇧	Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.
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. It meets B1 or B2 and all of B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but 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. 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. Reader's experience Some aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert classicist knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Individual review	Babylonia (as of August 2020)
⇧	Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation.
Start	A classics article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. 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 MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: Recent, reliable scholarship (from a classics journal or other relevant source) A particularly 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 Reader's experience Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.	Individual review	Third Dynasty of Ur (as of August 2020)
⇧	Suggestions for moving rating upwards: Any editing or additional material will be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be prioritised. Bear in mind that some topics may simply not have anything more than rudimentary data available on them – for example many of the more obscure ancient kings.
Stub	A very basic description of a topic clearly related to classics. 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; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. The article may be so short because information on the subject is simply not available to anybody, because it has been lost or not re-discovered. Reader's experience Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more useful than a dictionary definition.	Individual review	Lutipri (as of August 2020)
See also: Category:Ancient Near East articles by quality and the generic criteria.

Criteria for assessing importance on prose articles

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is a core topic in the history of the ancient Near East or is universally known of.	Babylonia Cuneiform Nebuchadnezzar II
High	Subject is not a key topic in the history of the ancient Near East but nevertheless is of interest to most.	Code of Hammurabi Gilgamesh Music of Mesopotamia
Mid	Subject is of interest to scholars of the ancient Near East but may be only peripherally known of by others.	Anunnaki Battle of Nineveh (612 BCE) Ebla
Low	Subject is of little interest, except to scholars of the ancient Near East.	Alarodian languages Alphabets of Asia Minor Assyrian siege of Jerusalem
NA	Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, disambiguations, categories, templates, etc.	Category:8th-century BC Babylonian kings

See also: Category:Ancient Near East articles by importance

Assessments of importance do not, and should not, reflect the importance of the subject within academia or ancient Near East studies, but rather its importance to an average reader with no background in the subject.

Statistics

Curation overview

Ancient Near East articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	3	3	4	6			16
FL		2	1				3
A			1				1
GA	9	15	26	56		8	114
B	70	61	161	320		128	740
C	49	110	279	665		179	1,282
Start	10	37	147	972		446	1,612
Stub			34	626		548	1,208
List	7	5	25	63		21	121
Category					1,420		1,420
Disambig					9		9
File					40		40
Project					9		9
Template					94		94
NA	2	3	12	46	236		299
Other					6		6
Assessed	150	236	690	2,754	1,814	1,330	6,974
Unassessed						12	12
Total	150	236	690	2,754	1,814	1,342	6,986
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 22,885			Ω = 4.60