Knowledge (XXG)

:WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)/Assessment - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Knowledge (XXG) articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Total
FL 1 1
GA 3 12 15
B 8 6 12 16 42
C 6 32 41 62 141
Start 15 63 130 208
Stub 10 40 50
List 2 1 7 6 16
Category 114 114
Disambig 1 2 3
File 44 44
Project 2 4 3 156 165
Redirect 1 7 42 92 142
Template 2 36 38
Other 3 4 7
Assessed 16 58 149 317 446 986
Total 16 58 149 317 446 986
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 2,060 Ω = 4.52

Welcome to the assessment department of the Knowledge (XXG) WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Knowledge (XXG)-related articles (for scope, see the WikiProject page). 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 {{WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Knowledge (XXG) articles by quality and Category:Knowledge (XXG) articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

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 Knowledge (XXG) 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)}} 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 project talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Knowledge (XXG) 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
6. 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.
7. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
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!
9. What if I have a question not listed here?
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)|class=???}}

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

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Knowledge (XXG) articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Knowledge (XXG) articles) ???
WikiProject article quality grading scheme
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 Knowledge (XXG)'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 Knowledge (XXG) articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Knowledge (XXG)'s copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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)
 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 Knowledge (XXG):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. 30 years war
 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. 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. Church of Scientology editing on Knowledge (XXG)
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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. Wikimedia Foundation
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. Wikitravel
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. Bellevue School District
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. Geographical bias on Knowledge (XXG)
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 Knowledge (XXG) articles, appropriately named and organized. List of Wikipedias
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:Wikimedia
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. Knowledge (XXG) (disambiguation)
File Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:Wiki.png
Portal Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. N/A
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles. Knowledge (XXG):List of media personalities who have vandalised Knowledge (XXG)
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Template:Knowledge (XXG)
NA Any non-article page that fits no other classification. The page contains no article content. Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified. N/A

Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Knowledge (XXG)|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Knowledge (XXG):Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Knowledge (XXG) articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Knowledge (XXG) articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Knowledge (XXG) articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Knowledge (XXG) articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Knowledge (XXG) articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Knowledge (XXG) articles)  ??? 

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Knowledge (XXG) needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Knowledge (XXG).

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Knowledge (XXG)
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Wikimania
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Polish Knowledge (XXG)
 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. Malayalam Knowledge (XXG)
 NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. Category:Knowledge (XXG)
 ??? Subject importance has not yet been assessed. Magnus Manske

Requesting an assessment

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.

Requests from 2024

Requests from September 2024
Requests from August 2024
Requests from 2024, January to July
Requests from July 2024
  • Requesting reassessment of Igorot revolt. I tried my best to bring it out of stub class at the very least, but I'm very aware that it needs more work done. NyanThousand (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
    checkY Done: reassessed as a Start class. I recommend you add an image, map, or graphic on the article as all the copyright is expired and more citations if possible. Then it can be assessed as a C class article. FloridaMan21 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Requesting assessment of Witness J. I have one question about sourcing I've included on the talk page but other than the one claim I'm happy with where the article is. 10:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)VerneDurand (talk)
    checkY Done: reassessed as a C class. The article is good how it is considering the anonymity of Witness J. 12:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC) FloridaMan21 (talk)
  • Requesting reassessment of Whot! from C to B-class. I‘ve added the section: English rules. This completes the two different Whot versions that exist. Added pictures and added archived inline citations throughout the article. According to the last assessment, this was missing for the article to be a B-class. Thanks for your help. Wikinwg. 12:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
    ☒N Not Done: The article needs just a little bit more citations and needs to be little bit more chunky. It's extremely close. As soon as this is done, I will reassess it as a B Class Article FloridaMan21 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Requests from June 2024
Requests from May 2024
 Done SammySpartan upgraded assessment from Stub to C. Ktkvtsh (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done @Joeykai, assessed as C. Expand more throughout the Early life and career sections if possible to get up to B. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Requests from April 2024
 Done Upgraded from Start to C assessment. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 Done upgraded assessment to C. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
Requests from March 2024
Requests from February 2024
@Georgeykiwi  Done content-wise it's a B-class in my opinion, I rated it "C" only because many of the references are dead, making verification difficult. If you rescue them, please ping me and I'll up the rating. Broc (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@Broc i have fixed all of the dead links! thank you :) George (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, I would like a reassessment of its importance. I believe it fits the criteria high, as the page is about a world-renowned pianist. Thanks EleniXDD (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

  • Wow, thanks for the assess of biography. That’s quick. Is it possible to also assess the two related wiki projects and evaluate their importance. Thanks a lot EleniXDD (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Requests from January 2024
Requests from 2023

Requests from 2023

Requests from December 2023
Requests from November 2023
 Done @Onagtruk: Assessed as C-class. See talk page for details. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
@Pac-Man PHD:  Done Reassessed as B-class. Thriftycat 21:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 09:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Requests from October 2023
Requests from September 2023
Requests from August 2023
Requests from July 2023
 Done - @CanadianSingh1469, for now, I gave a C-class initial assessment. The Rater assessment tool predicts 90-percent as B-Class article. On article's Talk, I added the "B-class review" checklist to start that evaluation. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Requests from June 2023
@Alfie66:, the B-Class review from 30 November 2016‎ mentions the unsourced section (Dealing with depth). Possibly find a published instruction book/manual to cite, or remove that content. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
It is it seems. I haven't seen an updated rating on the page in the last 10 months the request has been up. Thank you! Pastelitodepapa (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I am requesting a review of sections 2-7 of Chinese Legalism. I am not requesting a review of sections beyond this, as I have not much worked on and reviewed the sections beyond this, they are older. I am only requesting a review of the writing, concept, the content, the organization. As to the sourcing, the sourcing should be there, but my sources have become disjointed in places with rewriting, I am working on reconfirming and properly organizing them, which can be seen in some places. And I would of course have to introduce additional source content.FourLights (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
     Done Upgraded assessment from C to B. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:06, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Assessment requested by FourLights, and article history shows considerable updates. JoeNMLC (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I do not specifically require one unless you only wish to review small content. The article is under construction. I have not worked as much last week, I am under the weather. I must gradually make a complete review of the concept of wuwei.FourLights (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Requests from May 2023
Requests from April 2023
Requests from March 2023
Requests from February 2023
  • Requesting reassessment for Nikki Budzinski. This was the version assessed as start-class in May. I think it has improved in quality, perhaps to a C-class, with edits from myself and others, but more importantly it is not low-importance anymore: there are 17 US representatives from Illinois. Heavy Water (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Requests from January 2023
Requests from 2022

Requests from 2022

Assessment log

Knowledge (XXG) articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


September 17, 2024

Assessed

September 16, 2024

Removed

September 14, 2024

Assessed

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑