South Dakota articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA				2			2
FL		1					1
GA	3	1	9	14			27
B	2	16	31	48			97
C	3	18	43	163		8	235
Start	7	53	274	1,101		35	1,470
Stub		9	101	2,341		100	2,551
List	1	18	34	112			165
Category					2,884		2,884
Disambig				4	2		6
File				3	13		16
Portal					1		1
Template				1	268		269
NA			6	53	176		235
Other					3		3
Assessed	16	116	498	3,842	3,347	143	7,962
Unassessed				3		104	107
Total	16	116	498	3,845	3,347	247	8,069
WikiWork factors ( ?)		ω = 23,935			Ω = 5.46

Welcome to the assessment department of the South Dakota WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about South Dakota or the people of South Dakota. 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 South Dakota}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:South Dakota articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of the South Dakota WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

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. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.

Aren't the ratings subjective?

Yes, they are, 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 discussion page for this department.

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{ WikiProject South Dakota}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject South Dakota
|class=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class South Dakota articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class South Dakota articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class South Dakota articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class South Dakota articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class South Dakota articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class South Dakota articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article South Dakota pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed South Dakota articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Quality scale

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 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.	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. under discussion	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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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.	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 Wikipedia: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.	Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014)
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: 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.	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.	Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019)
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 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 it does not need to be " brilliant". 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.	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.	Psychology (as of January 2024)
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.	Wing (as of June 2018)
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.	Ball (as of September 2014)
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.	Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014)
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 Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	List of literary movements

Importance scale

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 Wikipedia 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 South Dakota.

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.

We are currently discussing which articles should be counted as being of Top-importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Dakota/Assessment/Top-importance articles.

Additional criteria to use:

Top importance

• South Dakota
• General "X of South Dakota" (where X = things like history, geography, demographics...)
• Sioux Falls, Rapid City
• Black Hills, Missouri River

High importance

• Cities with pop. 8,000 to 50,000
• Counties with pop. greater than 20,000
• Ellsworth AFB
• More specialized "X of South Dakota" (Ecology, geology, courts...)
• Major parks and monuments (National parks, Mt. Rushmore, Custer SP)
• Daugaard, Thune, Johnson, Noem
• State flag, state seal, state capitol
• SDSU and USD
• Large reservations
• Interstates 29 and 90
• Historical events with a major, lasting impact (L&C expedition, Dust Bowl, Wounded Knee massacre, BH gold rush...)
• Major geographic regions and features besides those listed as "Top" (Great Plains, James River...)
• Census-defined Metropolitan Areas (SF & RC)

Mid importance

• Cities with pop. 1,000 to 8,000
• Smaller counties
• "X of [City]" (e.g. "History of Sioux Falls")
• State government departments, agencies, etc.
• All other elected and appointed government offices
• Current major government officials (current secretary of X, Speaker of the House...)
• Widely known non-politicians (Tom Brokaw, Laura Ingalls Wilder...)
• Former governors, US senators, congressmen
• Notable buildings and structures (DakotaDome, other airports, Missouri River dams, etc.)
• Major media outlets (2 largest newspapers, affiliates of major TV networks, major regional radio stations, SDPB)
• Private and smaller public colleges and universities
• Interstates 190 and 229, US and SD highways of considerable length in the state
• Localized yet important geographic features (Harney Peak, Lake Oahe...)
• Smaller/less notable places managed by National Park Service, national wildlife refuges, state parks besides Custer
• Very limited number of companies with a major historical or large current impact (Milwaukee Road, Sanford Health...)
• Weather events of regional impact or great local impact (1993 floods, Rapid City flood...)
• Major tourist attractions (Wall Drug, Sturgis Rally, Crazy Horse monument...)
• Census-defined Micropolitan areas

Low importance

• Townships
• Cities with pop. less than 1,000
• All CDPs, unincorporated communities, and defunct cities
• Most politicians and government officials (state legislators, mayors...)
• Non-politicians of lesser fame or notablility
• Minor media outlets
• Elections
• Military units
• Most buildings
• Most organizations
• Most sports teams
• Nearly all companies
• Community colleges, high schools, middle schools

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.

The Journey Museum and Gardens ( Fact-of-the-matter ( talk) 15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)) reply

I've gone ahead and re-assessed it as C class. Like I said in my edit summary, the article still has issues, but is much larger than stub class. Alexius Horatius 20:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Joe Kirby I think this bio is longer and more detailed than a stub. Joepkirby ( talk) 00:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Upped it to "Start" class. Alexius Horatius 01:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Minnesela, South Dakota I revised and added new information to the article; it used to be Stub-class, and I am not sure which class it now belongs in. I believe it is much more than Start-class, but the Demographics section is poor (mainly due to its status as a ghost town). TCMemoire ( talk) 04:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I put it at C class (lots of references, but as you said the geography and demographics sections are really short.) I also agree that it's much more than stub and probably better than start. I think of stub as usually really short and start as "lots of information but really sloppy". You (or other members) are always welcome to change my assessments if you disagree. Alexius Horatius 12:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you. I do agree; the article could use some work, like I said. I will try to do more research to expand the article. TCMemoire ( talk) 16:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

April 26, 2024

Assessed

• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Brookings County, South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Grant County, South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Lawrence County, South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Pennington County, South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Sully County, South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Walworth County, South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)

April 23, 2024

Assessed

• Category:1890s disestablishments in Dakota Territory ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• 2024 United States presidential election in South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:21st-century South Dakota politicians ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:21st-century mayors of places in South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:21st-century people from South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Educational buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Health professionals from South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Talking Crow Archeological Site ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. ( rev · t)

April 22, 2024

Assessed

• Category:2019 disestablishments in South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• James A. Burg ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. ( rev · t)

April 21, 2024

Assessed

• Category:Chiefs of staff to the governor of South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)
• Category:Professional wrestling shows in South Dakota ( talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. ( rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. ( rev · t)

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.