Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Assessment

 Main page Articles for improvement Article nominations Schedule Assessment Accomplishments Automation & templates Participants Talk page 

This page explains the procedure for assessing the quality of TAFI articles. Assessments should be carried out before and after each collaboration, and should not be altered to reflect subsequent changes.

Assessment team

Anyone may assess articles in accordance with the criteria on this page. If you want to join TAFI's assessment team, sign your name below – but please note that the only advantages are: (1) you get to say that you're are part of a team; and (2) you are likely to get pinged if an assessment is overdue.

1. Evad37 [talk] 09:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
2. CSJJ104 (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
3. David Condrey (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
4. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
5. SapphireWilliams (talk page • contributions) 13:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:03, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
7. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
8. Sportsfangnome (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
9. Equalwidth (C) 06:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Overview

Introduction

The assessment system used by the TAFI 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.

Prose article				List article
		Stub				The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list, so this assessment level is shared between the two scales.
Start				List		A stub that undergoes some development will progress to the next stage of article evolution. An article at this stage provides some meaningful content, but is typically incomplete and lacks adequate references, structure, and supporting materials. At this stage, it becomes possible to distinguish between prose articles and lists; depending on its form, an article at this level will be assessed as a Start-Class prose article or a List-Class list.
C				CL		As the article continues to develop, it will reach the C-Class level. At this stage, the article is reasonably structured and contains substantial content and supporting materials, but may still be incomplete or poorly referenced. As articles progress to this stage, the assessment process begins to take on a more structured form, and specific criteria are introduced against which articles are rated.
B				BL		An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it may not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. B-Class is the final assessment level assigned at TAFI; higher assessments can be reached by undergoing a formal review process (see Good articles, A-Class criteria, Featured articles and Featured lists, or try Peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement).

Criteria

The following tables summarize the criteria used to assess articles at each level of the above quality assessment scale. In addition to the criteria, the tables list the assessment process used at each level and provide an example of an article previously assessed at that level.

Assessment criteria for prose articles

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
Stub	The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Individual review	Eagle Point National Cemetery (as of June 2011)
Start	The article meets the Start-Class criteria. Detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: A particularly 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	Individual review	Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (as of June 2011)
C	The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ below	Individual review	Incident at Xuanwu Gate (as of June 2011)
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ below	Individual review	Battle of Guttstadt-Deppen (as of June 2011)
GA	These levels are not assessed at TAFI, but are included here for the sake of completeness. Detailed criteria Good articles: see Good article criteria A-Class articles: see A-Class criteria FA-Class articles: see Featured article criteria	Formal review	Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith (as of June 2011)
A			Lockheed D-21 (as of June 2011)
FA			USS Chesapeake (as of June 2011)

Assessment criteria for lists

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
Stub	The list meets none of the List-Class criteria.	Individual review	List of supercavitating torpedoes (as of June 2012)
List	The list meets the List-Class criteria. Detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: A particularly 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	Individual review	List of Airborne Artillery Units (as of June 2012)
CL	The list meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ below	Individual review	List of assault rifles (as of June 2012)
BL	The list meets all of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ below	Individual review	List of hill forts in England (as of June 2012)
AL	These levels are not assessed at TAFI, but are included here for the sake of completeness. Detailed criteria AL-Class articles: see A-Class criteria FL-Class articles: see Featured list criteria	Formal review	List of battlecruisers of the United States (as of May 2012)
FL			Army of the Danube order of battle (as of June 2012)

Frequently asked questions: B-Class assessment & criteria

B1 – is suitably referenced and cited

Q. How much reference is enough – for example, what about articles using only the 1911 Britannica or the Dictionary of Fighting Ships? A lot of pages only use information from these sources, which, although is accurate, may not be ideal IMO. What is the policy in this regards?

A. Policy is to cite anything that is likely to be challenged but, again, this is B-Class not a FAC so some latitude is permitted. As a rule of thumb, all sections need an absolute minimum of one citation and all direct quotes should be attributed to a source. The sources you mention are fine.

B2 – reasonably covers the topic

Q. How comprehensive does the article need to be?

A. You are checking that there are no obvious gaps and that the article will reasonably answer any questions a general reader (not a specialist) might have. For example, a B-class article on an air force base would typically say where the base is, when it was in use, and which notable squadrons used it. Similarly, an article about a battle should say where and when, identify the participating units/armies, and mention the outcome.

B3 – has a defined structure, including a lead section

Q. Organization – What is the minimum to pass the article for organization? If we go by the template comment, as long as it has sections, its ok, irrespective of whether those actually work or if they are not ok.

A. Broadly, yes, though if they're ridiculously irrelevant, or very skimpy, consider re-organising the sections yourself on the sofixit principle. B-Class is not a very high bar.

Q. How long should the lead section be?

A. Providing it accurately summarizes the main body of the article, the length doesn't matter too much. That said, most reviewers expect to see at least one reasonably long paragraph.

B4 – is free from major grammatical errors

Q. What counts against grammar? – Needs a teeny weeny bit of expansion, since this is, from my experience, one of the harder ones to grade.

A. Sure. I wouldn't worry about minor grammatical or spelling errors and so forth. If it makes sense and is reasonably well written, pass it. ("The ship was sunk in 1918 by a torpedo from a German u-boat. Although 20 of her crew were killed, the remainder, including the captain, took to lifeboats and were picked up by HMS Example, which was in the vicinity.") Fail it only if the article is poorly written: "The ship sunk in 1918, by torpedo from a germa uboat. 20 crew went down in it but most with CAPT excvaped in lifeboats and were picked up by example."

Q. Do I pass a two-line stub for grammar if there are no mistakes or do I not as there is not much to judge?

A. Don't bother completing the checklist for something that short.

B5 – contains appropriate supporting graphics, infoboxes, or images

Q. If the page has good images, but lacks a much needed infobox, do we pass it or not.

A. Pass it. Please note that infoboxes are not compulsory. The fail really only applies if the article has no graphic (infobox, photos, graphics) at all. What we don't want is pages that are a wall of text, with nothing to break it up or add visual interest.

Q. Does a longer article require more supporting materials than a shorter one in order to pass Criterion 5? E.g. is one infobox at the top sufficient for a 12-screen-long article, or does it need something to break up the rest of the text as well?

A. Just an infobox is not sufficient for a longer article. The rest of the text should be broken up a bit as well.

How to assess (template instructions)

Further instructions: Template:Former TAFI

On the article's talk page, add the {{Former TAFI}} banner, if not present. Provide before and after assessments using the B-Class criteria checklists, and |oldclass= and |newclass= (if needed). This will produce something like:

The B-class criteria checklists will aid you in assessing the article, before and after the collaboration. Use the following code:

Code for B-Class Checklists

| oldclass=
| oldb1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no>
| oldb2 <!--Coverage & accuracy    --> = <yes/no>
| oldb3 <!--Structure              --> = <yes/no>
| oldb4 <!--Grammar & style        --> = <yes/no>
| oldb5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = <yes/no>
| newclass=
| newb1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no>
| newb2 <!--Coverage & accuracy    --> = <yes/no>
| newb3 <!--Structure              --> = <yes/no>
| newb4 <!--Grammar & style        --> = <yes/no>
| newb5 <!--Supporting materials   --> = <yes/no>

If the checklists are filled out, the template will automatically assign the classes B and C when the relevant criteria are met. Otherwise, use |oldclass= and |newclass= to set the before and after classes. To switch the automatic assessments onto the list-scale classes BL and CL, the specify |oldclass=list and/or |newclass=list.