Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Wikipedia:Article assessment (historical), the previous version superseded by this version; Wikipedia:Assessing articles, an essay on the criteria and purpose of article assessments; Wikipedia:Metadata gadget, a script (and gadget)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
To assess an article properly the reviewer should understand where the article fits in the spectrum of importance for the project, what information should be included ...
Article importance is based on a low to top importance scale (See 'Importance assessment rubric' for a full breakdown of each tier). Article importance is specific to the field the article is a part of. Since WikiProjects encompass a wide range of fields on Wikipedia, those participants are the principle editors assessing importance.
The assessment system used by the AFI project to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.
To see the date when the article was promoted, go to its talk page and look for a banner with the article history. If the last formal assessment [ a ] was more than a few years ago, it is likely still a fairly high quality article, but may not be comparable to more recently promoted articles.
Once you find an article that aligns with the scope of WikiProject Writing, you can add an article tag on the talk page by using Rater or Wikitext. Rater: Select Rater from the drop down menu under “More” on the top right-hand side of the article’s talk page. From there, search for WikiProject Writing and save your selection.
An A-Class article should approach the standards for a Featured article (FA), but will typically fall short because of minor style issues. The article may need minor copyedits, but it should be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and well-written. A peer review by project editors should find the article to be a viable candidate for FA status ...
The article is well-established in both age, length and size. Multiple editors contribute to the page and most of the editors are well-established. The article is either young, short, edited by few contributors, or edited by new contributors. The article is young, short, edited by few contributors, and those contributors are new to Wikipedia.