The following system is used by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for assessing how close we are to a distribution-quality article on a particular topic. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though language quality and layout are also factors. Once an article reaches the , it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made. The quality assessments are mainly performed by participants in WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles. These tags are then collected by a bot, which generates output such as a log and statistics. For more information, see ''Using the bot''. (Note that when more than one WikiProject has rated an article, the bot will take the best rating as the rating of the overall article.) The WP:1.0 team is now setting up to use a ''second'' bot to select articles, based on the assessments performed by WikiProjects. Two levels, GA (Good Article) and FA (Featured Article), are assessments made by independent editors, rather than by WikiProjects. GAs are generally reviewed by a single editor, and FA by a panel. Candidates are nominated by listing them at ''WP:Good article nominations'' and ''WP:Featured article candidates''. Judgments are made according to the criteria at ''WP:Good article criteria'' and ''WP:Featured article criteria'', and the results are listed at ''WP:Good articles'' and ''WP:Featured articles''. 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. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. More active WikiProjects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment. At present this assessment system is in use in the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and in several hundred WikiProjects on the English Wikipedia. As of May 2017, over 5.1 million articles have been assessed. Several other languages are also using this assessment system or a derivative thereof.


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

Non-standard grades

Some WikiProjects use other assessments for mainspace content that do not fit into the above scale: 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 categorise relevant pages in other namespaces. The precise application of these grades may vary depending on their usage by individual WikiProjects. 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. Image:AssessmentTimeline.png|800px| rect 15 160 75 221 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=234326 The article was a stub when its earliest surviving edit was made on 1 Oct 2001.rect 38 101 111 158 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&direction=prev&oldid=367342 By 8 Oct 2001, it approached the upper bound of a stub.rect 708 166 793 225 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&direction=next&oldid=234334 On 20 Sep 2002, more useful content was added and it became Start.rect 1891 166 1944 225 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&direction=prev&oldid=4259089 3 Jun 2004, Start; meaningful amount of information, but more structuring is needed.rect 1930 111 1982 165 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&direction=prev&oldid=4511956 24 Jun 2004, a useful image is added; now it is at the upper bound of Start.rect 2090 164 2158 225 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=5986276 On 18 Sep 2004, some sections have expanded and it just reaches C-class.rect 2757 156 2822 213 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=22264876 By 31 Aug 2005 it has been expanded, but needs refs; it can be comfortably called C-class.rect 2946 156 3006 215 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=31067639 12 Dec 2005, enough content & structure for a respectable article. In spite of its lack of in-line citations, the article is approaching the upper limit of C-Class. If it were properly referenced, we could have considered rating it B-class.] rect 3419 154 3488 215 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=70632170 By 19 Aug 2006, several new images and contents from a cited book have been added; just makes B-Class.] rect 3820 156 3905 218 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=117195118 By 23 Mar 2007, new content and refs have been added; easily B-class.rect 4202 151 4284 211 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=164550316 17 Oct 2007, nominated for a Peer Review.rect 4399 154 4489 214 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=189985194 Review closes on 9 Feb 2008, after addressing MoS / inline cite issues; becomes A-Class.rect 4400 93 4490 151 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=190441059 10 Feb 2008, nominated and listed as GA.rect 4445 36 4528 92 /en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Atom&oldid=192086950 12 Feb 2008, FAC; promoted to FA 18 Feb. desc bottom-left

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 a template at .


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.



; 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 only be used 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, 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. ; Does this have anything to do with the Wikipedia:Article Feedback Tool, which used to appear at the end of many articles? : No, that was a completely separate system.

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.

See also

* Wikipedia:Article assessment (historical), the previous version superseded by this version. * Wikipedia:Assessing articles, an essay on the criteria and purpose of article assessments * Wikipedia:Metadata gadget, a script (and gadget) that finds articles' assessment information from the talk page and puts it in the article's header. * User:Evad37/rater, a currently maintained tool that helps fill in assessments and other parameters for WikiProject banners. A complete remake of User:Kephir/gadgets/rater, a script for tagging articles' talk pages with assessment information. * User:N8wilson/AQFetcher, a script that stylizes links on Wikipedia according to the assessed quality of the target article. * mw:Article feedback, an initiative of the Wikimedia Foundation to engage Wikimedia readers in the assessment of article quality, one of the five priorities defined in the strategic plan * Wikipedia:Data mining Wikipedia, a potential use of WikiProject assessments * {{Cl|Articles_by_quality - List of articles by their quality Category:Wikipedia project content guidelines