Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Wikipedia WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia-related articles (for scope, see the WikiProject page). 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 Wikipedia}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Wikipedia articles by quality and Category:Wikipedia articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

See also the general assessment FAQ
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the project talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Wikipedia is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
6. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
7. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
8. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
9. What if I have a question not listed here?
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.


Quality assessments[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Wikipedia|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Wikipedia articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Wikipedia articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Wikipedia articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Wikipedia articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Wikipedia articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Wikipedia articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Wikipedia articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Wikipedia articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Wikipedia articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Wikipedia articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Wikipedia articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Wikipedia articles) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Wikipedia articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Wikipedia articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Wikipedia articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Wikipedia articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Wikipedia articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Wikipedia articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Wikipedia articles) ???

Quality scale[edit]

Importance assessment[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Wikipedia|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Wikipedia articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Wikipedia articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Wikipedia articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Wikipedia articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Wikipedia articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Wikipedia articles)  ??? 

Importance scale[edit]

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 Wikipedia.

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.

Requesting an assessment[edit]

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.

  • Prunus salicina Revised significantly, and expanded on; no longer start-class, maybe B or C class. Would appreciate assessment or feedback. --Kai Retter (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Barnaparichay Revised by adding multiple sections and probably no longer "stub". User:Prinakitalk)1:47, 17 May 2023
  • Abd Al Aziz Awda Revised significantly in April 2023; probably no longer "start class" (has been listed as such since 2006-7). Eithersummer (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2023
  • Mitch Love Substantially re-written and expanded upon. Likely no longer qualifies as a stub. Thanks, IceBergYYC (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Both Harmony (operating system) and Thoth (operating system) were created about three years ago, and haven't been assessed yet. I would appreciate someone taking a look at either, or both.Kumboloi (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Supriyo v. Union of India I have read the written arguments submitted in the case and attempted to summarise and describe the contents of legal document for a wider audience. But concerns have been raised about using Primary Source in the Article ie (Wikipedia:No original research). However, it has been used in the context of Written Argument in a legal case, where I am presenting the arguments made by each party. So, as mentioned in the "Primary" does not mean "bad" section of Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources. I think in this case, primary sources are the best source. I think an independent assesment of the usage of primary sources will resolve any concerns anyone might have. Also, it was rated "C" before I read, summarised and added the respondents view. Now, both sides of the arguments have been presented. Could you consider the rating as well?Wiki6995 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Eric Harroun I gave this page a glowup, I'd argue it meets Good Article standards imo. The article is pretty complete in terms of info; there's not much more reliable info available on him outside of what's currently included. There's also no copyright-free photos of him, based on some searching. I included several general relevant images Jacoblee628 (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kore Ilbo is a page I made that could use an assessment. Maybe C-class? Jacoblee628 (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think maybe B class and hopefully go for good article. I spruced it up even more now. Jacoblee628 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Arthur John Allmand- Hi, Arthur John Allmand has been significantly expanded and as such needs to be reassesed as it is currently a stub. --Blackwater-Bradfield1900 (talk) 10:44, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Once Upon a Sesame Street Christmas has been significantly improved during the course of an AfD and should be reassessed for a promotion to start-class. Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello, I've made significant improvements to Merrill Edge. This article had not been really updated since 2016. Would like to request an assessment. I believe it meets all the Class B criteria, but eventually I would like to go beyond that to GA or A, so your feedback and advice are highly appreciated. Thank you
  • Hi there - I am in the process of updating and revising Nursing in Australia and while there is still much to achieve, I feel it is of a higher status than a "start" article. Could someone please have a look, rate, and provide advice. Thanks Adamm (talkcontribs) 01:00, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've expanded Leeds 13 art collective with the later less well known projects, and would appreciate feedback and/or an assessment. Thanks Arnhemcr (talk) 10:57, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've updated Leland Milling Company significantly in January/Early February and would appreciate an assessment/feedback regarding it. plaidchampion (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've updated ASM International (society) significantly in December/early January and would appreciate an assessment/feedback regarding it. (First larger set of changes to an article). Referencer12 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Kevin Laland has been expanded and a name change has been documented. Would like to request a new assessment and also seek advice on changing the title of the page. FlybellFly (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Robert William Johnstone has been greatly expanded since the last assessment. A new assessment would be appreciated. Papamac (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Donald Cline - (Project: Lowest quality high-popularity articles). Article currently unassessed. Added stub tag and expanded article. This article can still be expanded but should now be sufficient to classify. Thanks. Wikijenitor (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Jenn Colella — extensively revised and expanded. Self-upgraded from 'Start' to 'C' class on March 11th, but with work now substantively complete, would appreciate an objective opinion for the article's current grade. Thank you. ~ OldBeeg (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article The Benza was first ranked in 2019 and has been expanded on since then greatly. If someone has time, a reassessment would be appreciated. Thank you!-Craft777 (talk)14:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello, the article Franco-Nevada has been significantly updated and expanded in cooperation with Wikipedia editors. A reassessment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.--JasonP416 (talk) 00:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello, I have greatly expanded Anne Arundel Community College, Delaware County Community College and Community College of Philadelphia. Please reassess. Thank you. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello, I have removed some material from the article Briggs Cunningham, and made other edits to change the tone. I would appreciate having it reassessed. Thank you. Kumboloi (talk) 17:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi! I have been working Philippine Normal University which was initially assessed as stub. It will be helpful if it will be re-assessed. Thank you very much.InLocoMagistra (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello! I have improved the Puppetry of the Penis article by adding over 2000 words, media, an infobox and references for my university assignment. It was initially a stub article, and since then I have contributed 92.5% of the article. It would be very helpful if this article could be re-assessed for quality and importance, and I welcome all feedback for improvement. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi, I've made many improvements to the wiki article I have been working on Veena Sahajwalla. This article was initially a stub but I have now contributed 5 more sections and covered much more material. Thank you mui3772 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello, I would like to request an assessment for the wiki page article I have been working on Atrax yorkmainorum. This article was classified as a stub and I have since contributed 94.1% to it. It would be greatly appreciated if an assessment of the quality and importance is performed. Thank you in very much in advance.AvaPine123 (talk) 13:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to request an assessment for the wiki page Brown Lake (Stradbroke Island). I have extended and improved the article, which is currently rated a stub class. I would greatly appreciate a reassessment of the quality of the article, as well as its importance scale.SnoMurWal (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would like to request a reassessment for the page Phoracantha semipunctata. I have been able to make some major changes to the page, in terms of adding more information, citations, categories, etc. If there are any fellow editors willing to reassess the quality of the article, I would really love to hear your input. Thanks! Pkos079 (talk) 10:12, 24 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Requesting a reassessment of OpenVMS. I have made significant changes to it, increased the number of citations by about 2x, and removed a large quantity of unencyclopaedic content. Vt320 (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Requesting a reassessment of Vellar River (Northern Tamil Nadu). I have made significant additions to content and sources, and believe I have improved the quality. Thanks! Starkenborgher (talk) 16:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • May anyone give an assessment for my article for further increase in level or provide suggestions? I wrote it all myself, it is called Soft Privacy Technology Thank you. --BunnyShampoo (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello, I have been editing the Edward Charles Pickering article for a class assignment, and my partner and I now account for about 40% of the authorship of this article. Would someone mind taking a look at it to see if the quality assessment has changed? Thank you. --COeditor1 (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've been part of major overhauls to Gioachino Greco, and I would love if somebody could assess the product! Mack Robot (talk) 05:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Beatrice Wishart and Wendy Chamberlain – Both articles have been fleshed out, and I don't think either can be considered a stub at this point. Would appreciate a reassessment. Domeditrix (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • FL Studio -- This has lots of problems. I've pruned it significantly, but what would be a good approach toward rewriting it? -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Elliott Lewis -- another user and I made significant expansions to this article and added many sources. Would someone please reassess? I have no experience in this area. Thanks. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sidharth Shukla -I have added content and made it better article with reliable source so please make it to C or B class
  • Cheerful Givers – Do the changes made qualify it for an upgrade from stub to start class? WikkanWitch (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Blue baby syndrome - I have made significant contributions to this article through my WikiMed class and would love for it to be re-assessed! Stephhads (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Edith Gwynne Read - requesting assessment please, thank you!! Minard38 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nottingham Goose Fair – I've done a lot of work to improve/expand this Start-Class article over past 12 months and consider it's ready to be promoted to at least C-class or even B-class. Please review, thanks. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Roanoke Colony has been heavily revised and expanded, and is need of a reassessment. I'd appreciate any feedback on how to further improve the article. --Jim Into Mystery (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have made significant changes to the ASVOFF, Diane Pernet, Allan Porter and Camera (magazine) articles: could someone please re-asses them? Thanks in advance. TP   10:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tottenham Mandem made significant changes and expansion to the article. Currently rated start class. Thanks!Madbrad200 (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Railway electrification in the Soviet Union is much improved and expanded (mostly by me) since the last assessment.
  • The article Prehistoric_art, which is classified as a level-2 vital article, was originally rated Start-class. It has been changed considerably since its rating. LivinAWestLife 12:56 19 June 2019
  • The article Japan National Route 4 has been expanded a lot without reassessment. ∻ℳcCunicano 02:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article Alliteration (Latin) has been up for over a year without an assessment. May I request one? Thanks. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article Chichewa tones is a companion to Chichewa tenses. The latter has been classed as "B", but the former as only "C" ("The article is substantial, but is still missing important content etc."). Since it was first assessed Chichewa tones has been improved and edited: it is hard to see what content could now be added, since there is very little in the recently published Phonology of Chichewa by Downing and Mtenje (OUP, 2018) which is not covered in the article. I would therefore respectfully request a reassessment, if possible. Thank you. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article Ancient Greek accent has now been substantially rewritten and enlarged from the time it was first assessed and the number of pageviews has increased as a result to nearly 2000 a month. The assessments "start" class and "low" importance therefore seem no longer appropriate, and I would like to request a reassessment if possible. Kanjuzi (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've made significant additions and improvements to the page Inch, Edinburgh. It's currently a stub class article. Please assess and update its quality rating. Thank you.Papamac (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've nearly tripled the size of the article Nynorsk. It is certainly no longer qualified as Start-Class. Would appreciate it if it could be reassessed. Thanks. Stusseligbruker
  • Over the past year or so I have made several changes and additions to Los Alamos, New Mexico. Please assess this article. Thank you.

  • I've made significant additions and improvements to the page neutral particle oscillation. It's currently a start class article. Kindly assess and update its quality rating. Thank you. — Soham92 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I have edited the page on Fock state to a significant level. It is now a Start class article. Please assess and update its rating. Thank you. Indranil1993 (talk) 11:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have made significant additions and improvements to the page Native American flute. It is currently a C class article. I am hoping to get an updated assessment of its quality rating. Thank you! — ClintGoss (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have made significant improvements to the Dubai International Academy article (previous version by the last contributor having been rated as Stub class), and was hoping to have it assessed again. Regards, VB00 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • At nearly 10k bytes and growing, the article on Aaron Traywick might be ready to remove the stub tag and be considered a start-class article. Please evaluate to assess. Thank you, ー「宜しく 」 クロノ  カム  05:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I translated Serve the People (Norway) from the original Norwegian article and added a little more content. It was formerly a stub, and I think it may qualify for un-stubbing. It still needs some minor improvements (notably fixing the formatting of citations, translating source titles from Norwegian, correcting dates, etc.), but it's more or less been bumped up from the stub category, IMO. Would be grateful for a re-assessment. Thanks! AndersLeo (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi, I substantially expanded the article All My Babies, and think the edits warrant a reassessment. It's currently rated as a stub-class. 9H48F (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BushraSh (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC) A coalition of contributers edited the Persepolis (comics) article. We think the edits and new contributions warrant a new assessment of the article and its quality. Thank you! BushraSh (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Sylvia Massy has had considerable amount of information added. Not sure when it was assessed but it's definitely not starter anymore. Actaudio (talk) 07:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't made changes to the Obscurantism article, but it struck me as very informative, well-written and there are no apparent edit wars in the history log. It's been c-class since 2009 from what I've found. My initial thought was that this article should be nominated as a good article, but that's the first time I request an assessment for an article, so a simple improvement from C to B would be nice anyway. I would personally support a good article nomination nevertheless. MonsieurD (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did a lot of work to try and improve this Toy Biz article like removing promotional language and adding sources. I'm curious if it's worth reassessment. Issues still remain (I'm working on fixing the source problem), but think it's beyond Start Class at this point. Balle010 (talk) 01:15, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have been working to improve The Japanese House, and would eventually like to get it to GA status but for now I would like it to be reassessed so I can see where to improve it. It was previously a stub, but there is still a bit more work to be done. IphisOfCrete (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Significant improvements have been made to Cecogram since its initial assessment in October 2019. These include new media, expanded research, and improved writing that adheres to Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Illinois347 (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi! I have made significant changes to the page One Health and after my edits, the ORES predicted quality of the article is FA. I don't think it is at the status of a featured article just yet, but would appreciate a reassessment. I would like to nominate for GA status soon too. Any feedback is welcomed! DK.Sci (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi! I've developed this BLP article Ni Yulan (about a human rights lawyer persecuted in China) significantly in recent weeks . Hope that it can get a re-assessment soon. Thanks!--Thomas Meng (talk) 03:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi, I'm requesting an assessment of the Miss Americana article, which, I think, has reached a well-written quality with all the necessary information required for a documentary. Thanks! BawinV (talk) 11:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Heya! I have been editing the Nathaniel Curtis draft article about the British actor and I've added more information and sources from recent interviews. Could someone take a look at it and let me know the quality assessment? Thank you! --Ibeafella 16:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi, I am asking for an assessment of 2008 Beijing Wushu Tournament. I have been editing it extensively the past few weeks but it has existed since 2008 without an assessment at all. I will greatly appreciate this. Thanks. Yinglong999 (talk) 01:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello! I've made significant edits to the Built environment article. I expanded the depth of the definition of the built environment and restructured the article to be less dependent on examples like the banner points out. I'd love if someone could reassess it! Thanks Emilyp99 (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hello! I have improved the Puppetry of the Penis article by adding over 2000 words, media, an infobox and references for my university assignment. It was initially a stub article, and since then I have contributed 92.5% of the article. It would be very helpful if this article could be re-assessed for quality and importance, and I welcome all feedback for improvement. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hi! I have improved the Lumbini Province article by adding significant amount of data. It would be great if this article could be re-assessed for it's quality and importance, User:SNOW 977 9 July 2021.
  • Requesting reassessment for Krystyna Kersten following substantial revision. I would say B-class but that might be overly hopeful. Thank you! Kazamzam (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Requesting reassessment for Nikki Budzinski. This was the version assessed as start-class in May. I think it has improved in quality, perhaps to a C-class, with edits from myself and others, but more importantly it is not low-importance anymore: there are 17 US representatives from Illinois. Heavy Water (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Assessment requested for Pusheen. Several users (including myself) have made cleanup edits and slight expansions to the article over the past several months. I just noticed that the article is still showing up as a Stub. Top5a (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am requesting a review of sections 2-7 of Chinese Legalism. I am not requesting a review of sections beyond this, as I have not much worked on and reviewed the sections beyond this, they are older. I am only requesting a review of the writing, concept, the content, the organization. As to the sourcing, the sourcing should be there, but my sources have become disjointed in places with rewriting, I am working on reconfirming and properly organizing them, which can be seen in some places. And I would of course have to introduce additional source content.FourLights (talk) 16:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Assessment log[edit]

Wikipedia articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

June 7, 2023[edit]


June 6, 2023[edit]


  • Ruviki (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

June 5, 2023[edit]