User:Arb/Assessment criteria summary

For each class is given:

Summary
Detailed criteria
Reader's experience
Editing suggestions

Derived from Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment#Grades.

Stub

A very basic description of the topic.

Very short or a rough collection of information that needs much work.

Provides very little meaningful content.

Any editing or content addition will help. Consider: wikify, infobox, photo(s), headings, links in and out, navbox(es), categorisation, but addition of meaningful content is the priority.

Start

Developing but still quite incomplete. Lacks adequate reliable sources.

Has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Prose may be unencyclopaedic and MoS compliance non-existent but meets notability and BLP policies, and has sufficient references to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.

Provides some meaningful content but the majority of readers will want more.

Provision of references to reliable sources is the priority; may still need substantial improvement to content and organisation.

C

Substantial but still missing important content or containing a lot of irrelevant material. Should have some references to reliable sources but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

Better developed in style, structure and quality but fails one or more of the B-Class criteria. May have some gaps or missing elements, need editing for clarity, balance, flow or contain policy violations such as bias or original research.

Useful to a casual reader but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.

Close gaps in content and cleanup.

B

See also:

Mostly complete and without major issues but requires some further work to reach good article standard.

The article meets the six B-Class criteria:

The article is suitably referenced with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources and any important or controversial material that is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required.
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 organised 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 it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged though not required. Diagrams and 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. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia 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 also be considered if practical and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.

A

See also:

The article is well organised and essentially complete having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.

Meets the A-Class criteria:

Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article.
Should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured and well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources.
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.

Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.

Expert knowledge may be needed to polish the article and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help.

Assessment methods: Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment/A-Class_criteria#Basic method.

GA

The article has passed an independent good article review.

Well-written:
1. prose clear and concise, respects copyright laws; spelling and grammar are correct
2. complies with MoS guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction and list incorporation.
Verifiable with no original research:
1. contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline
2. provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged; contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines
3. contains no original research.
Broad in coverage:
1. addresses the main aspects of the topic
2. stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail; uses summary style.
Neutral: represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
Stable: does not change significantly from day to daye.
Illustrated, if possible, by images:
1. tagged with their copyright status; valid fair use rationales provided for non-free content
2. relevant to the topic with suitable captions and Alt= text.

Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopaedia.

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.

FA

The article has passed an independent featured article review.

Exemplifies our very best work; distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing. Meets all content policies.

It is:
1. well-written: prose engaging or brilliant and of a professional standard
2. comprehensive: neglects no major facts or details; places the subject in context
3. well-researched: 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: presents views fairly and without bias
5. stable: not subject to ongoing edit wars; content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
1. a concise lead section that summarises the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
2. a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
3. where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1); for articles with footnotes the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
Has images and other media where appropriate with succinct captions & Alt= text and acceptable copyright status. Follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion and be labelled accordingly.
Length appropriate. Stays focused on main topic without unnecessary detail and uses summary style.

Professional, outstanding and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopaedic information.

No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.