Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Reserved for articles that have received
featured article status after
community review.
|
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. | Hubble Space Telescope | ||
![]() |
A-Class articles are assessed by two editors within the project to determine that they are close to featured article status. Submit a request for an assessment the same way you would for a B-class article; the only difference is two reviewers will assess it.
|
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 "tweak" the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. | None | ||
![]() |
Reserved for articles that have received
Good article status after
community review.
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. | 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. | CryoSat-2 | ||
B | The article is mostly complete, without major issues, but requires some further work to reach
Good Article standards.
|
No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. | Jules Verne ATV | ||
C | The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
|
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 address cleanup issues. |
Eugene Cernan | ||
Start | The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, may lack one or more key elements, and may require serious cleanup. It should have at least one serious element of content, and should not meet the definition of a stub.
|
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Sputnik 2 | ||
Stub | The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information which will require a large amount of work to achieve recognition. It meets the general definition of a
Stub.
|
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. |
International Designator |
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Reserved for articles that have received
featured article status after
community review.
|
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 ISS spacewalks | ||
BL | The list meets all of the B-Class criteria.
|
No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. |
List of hill forts in England ( as of June 2012) | ||
List | Meets the criteria of a Stand-alone List, 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 space agencies |
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Any category falls under this class. | Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called. | Be aware not to over-categorise and to be careful of maintaining a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. | Category:Russian cosmonauts |
Disambig | Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | Serves to distinguish article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. | Pay particular attention to the proper naming of disambiguation articles, they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. | Mercury 1 |
File | Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. | Images are used to help explain articles by providing examples of style, lay-out, logo, or other typical visual aspects. Many images are fair use and should be used sparingly. Public domain or Creative Commons / GFDL licensed images can be used more freely. | Editors need to ensure that images have correct licenses, fair use rationales (where applicable), and are only used in articles for which they have such rationale. Fair use images should not be used as pure decoration. | Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg |
Portal | Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. | Portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content. | Editors need to ensure the portal is kept updated and displays properly, updating news sections and looking out for red links. | Portal:Spaceflight |
Project | All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. | Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development, and are probably not useful to readers. | Develop these pages into collaborative resources useful for improving articles within the project. | Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight |
Redirect | Any redirect in the article namespace falls under this class. | A redirect takes reader to another article relevant to the article they wanted. | Ensure article is still redirect, otherwise re-assess. |
HEASARC (as of December 2010) |
Template | Is any type of template. The most common types of template used in the WikiProject are infoboxes and navboxes. | Serves different purposes depending upon the type of template. Infoboxes go at the upper right of a page and are a way of providing easy access to important pieces of introductory infomation about the subject. Navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page, and are for the purpose of uniting a group of related articles into an easily accessible format for inclusion on every page listed in the navbox. | Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. | Template:Shenzhou program |
NA | Is not an article, and fits no other classification. | Probably not useful to any casual reader, these are typically only WikiProject pages. | Look out for mis-classified articles. Currently many NA-class articles need to be re-classified. | None |
I think the first thing we should do, especially if we are looking at adding multiple list classes, is split the single large table into several smaller tables as I have done to the original draft above. This makes it easier for somebody to find the particular type of article they are assessing and on our assessment page these can be separated by subsection headings to appear on the TOC. Even if we do not add a more list classes, I think that the non article classes should be separated because they are not as frequently used and in most cases we do not want these classes used outside their respective namespaces (category, template, etc.). Feel free to revert if you do not think this is the best course of action.-- Cincotta1 ( talk) 02:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@ רונאלדיניו המלך, JustinTime55, Cincotta1, Kees08, Craigboy, Frietjes, JFG, Rmvandijk, N2e, Ulflund, Nagualdesign, and WDGraham: Any of you guys interested in taking a look at the new criteria? We will be proposing this to the whole project once we have it hammered out. I am happy with it as-is. Let me know your thoughts, will be proposing to the project by tomorrow. Kees08 ( talk) 18:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on all of the changes, although I noticed some of them. Might it be possible to put up a side-by-side comparison, so those who drop by quickly can easily see the full extent of whatever changes you are proposing? In my quick scan, I did not see any issues however. N2e ( talk) 20:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I've had a quick look, I think it is looking fine as proposed. Criteria in B and C are the same list (though C doesn't require all of them), is that correct? Rmvandijk ( talk) 11:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Cincotta1: I think this is pretty close to finished. The last step should be grabbing articles that are currently accurately assessed to put in the right column. We should grab the permalink to that so it does not become out of date. Once we do that (and any other cleanup you want to do), I think we should propose it to the project to see if we can get a consensus. After that, I am going to go through and assess a lot of articles! Do you have time to update that column? If not, I'll try to make time soon. Let me know thanks! Kees08 ( talk) 04:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings all. It has been 6 or so years since we updated the assessment criteria for this project.
Proposal 1: Include A-class as an assessment option.
Proposal 2: Specify C-class grading scheme in a more clear way.
Proposal 3: Add BL-class grading scheme.
All other changes for this proposal are formatting, including: permalinks to the articles in the right column, splitting up the single table into multiple tables.
I have not proposed any changes like this before, I think I am close to the format people typically use? Fix that as needed. Let me know what you think! Kees08 ( talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Reserved for articles that have received
featured article status after
community review.
|
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. | Hubble Space Telescope | ||
![]() |
A-Class articles are assessed by two editors within the project to determine that they are close to featured article status. Submit a request for an assessment the same way you would for a B-class article; the only difference is two reviewers will assess it.
|
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 "tweak" the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. | None | ||
![]() |
Reserved for articles that have received
Good article status after
community review.
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. | 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. | CryoSat-2 | ||
B | The article is mostly complete, without major issues, but requires some further work to reach
Good Article standards.
|
No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. | Jules Verne ATV | ||
C | The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria.
|
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 address cleanup issues. |
Eugene Cernan | ||
Start | The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, may lack one or more key elements, and may require serious cleanup. It should have at least one serious element of content, and should not meet the definition of a stub.
|
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Sputnik 2 | ||
Stub | The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information which will require a large amount of work to achieve recognition. It meets the general definition of a
Stub.
|
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. |
International Designator |
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
Reserved for articles that have received
featured article status after
community review.
|
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 ISS spacewalks | ||
BL | The list meets all of the B-Class criteria.
|
No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style. |
List of hill forts in England ( as of June 2012) | ||
List | Meets the criteria of a Stand-alone List, 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 space agencies |
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
Category | Any category falls under this class. | Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help users find information, even if they don't know that it exists or what it's called. | Be aware not to over-categorise and to be careful of maintaining a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles. | Category:Russian cosmonauts |
Disambig | Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | Serves to distinguish article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. | Pay particular attention to the proper naming of disambiguation articles, they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. | Mercury 1 |
File | Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. | Images are used to help explain articles by providing examples of style, lay-out, logo, or other typical visual aspects. Many images are fair use and should be used sparingly. Public domain or Creative Commons / GFDL licensed images can be used more freely. | Editors need to ensure that images have correct licenses, fair use rationales (where applicable), and are only used in articles for which they have such rationale. Fair use images should not be used as pure decoration. | Image:Apollo 11 bootprint.jpg |
Portal | Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. | Portals are useful entry-points to Wikipedia content. | Editors need to ensure the portal is kept updated and displays properly, updating news sections and looking out for red links. | Portal:Spaceflight |
Project | All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. | Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development, and are probably not useful to readers. | Develop these pages into collaborative resources useful for improving articles within the project. | Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight |
Redirect | Any redirect in the article namespace falls under this class. | A redirect takes reader to another article relevant to the article they wanted. | Ensure article is still redirect, otherwise re-assess. |
HEASARC (as of December 2010) |
Template | Is any type of template. The most common types of template used in the WikiProject are infoboxes and navboxes. | Serves different purposes depending upon the type of template. Infoboxes go at the upper right of a page and are a way of providing easy access to important pieces of introductory infomation about the subject. Navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page, and are for the purpose of uniting a group of related articles into an easily accessible format for inclusion on every page listed in the navbox. | Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. | Template:Shenzhou program |
NA | Is not an article, and fits no other classification. | Probably not useful to any casual reader, these are typically only WikiProject pages. | Look out for mis-classified articles. Currently many NA-class articles need to be re-classified. | None |
I think the first thing we should do, especially if we are looking at adding multiple list classes, is split the single large table into several smaller tables as I have done to the original draft above. This makes it easier for somebody to find the particular type of article they are assessing and on our assessment page these can be separated by subsection headings to appear on the TOC. Even if we do not add a more list classes, I think that the non article classes should be separated because they are not as frequently used and in most cases we do not want these classes used outside their respective namespaces (category, template, etc.). Feel free to revert if you do not think this is the best course of action.-- Cincotta1 ( talk) 02:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@ רונאלדיניו המלך, JustinTime55, Cincotta1, Kees08, Craigboy, Frietjes, JFG, Rmvandijk, N2e, Ulflund, Nagualdesign, and WDGraham: Any of you guys interested in taking a look at the new criteria? We will be proposing this to the whole project once we have it hammered out. I am happy with it as-is. Let me know your thoughts, will be proposing to the project by tomorrow. Kees08 ( talk) 18:39, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really clear on all of the changes, although I noticed some of them. Might it be possible to put up a side-by-side comparison, so those who drop by quickly can easily see the full extent of whatever changes you are proposing? In my quick scan, I did not see any issues however. N2e ( talk) 20:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
I've had a quick look, I think it is looking fine as proposed. Criteria in B and C are the same list (though C doesn't require all of them), is that correct? Rmvandijk ( talk) 11:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
@ Cincotta1: I think this is pretty close to finished. The last step should be grabbing articles that are currently accurately assessed to put in the right column. We should grab the permalink to that so it does not become out of date. Once we do that (and any other cleanup you want to do), I think we should propose it to the project to see if we can get a consensus. After that, I am going to go through and assess a lot of articles! Do you have time to update that column? If not, I'll try to make time soon. Let me know thanks! Kees08 ( talk) 04:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings all. It has been 6 or so years since we updated the assessment criteria for this project.
Proposal 1: Include A-class as an assessment option.
Proposal 2: Specify C-class grading scheme in a more clear way.
Proposal 3: Add BL-class grading scheme.
All other changes for this proposal are formatting, including: permalinks to the articles in the right column, splitting up the single table into multiple tables.
I have not proposed any changes like this before, I think I am close to the format people typically use? Fix that as needed. Let me know what you think! Kees08 ( talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)