User:ClemRutter/Assessment Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClemRutter/Assessment

What follows are some tightly penned descriptions to help distinguish between the lower grades of articles, that can be cut and pasted on Talk pages to explain an assessment decision.

Stub -A very basic description of the topic. It provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.

More detailed criteria

The article could be a very short article.

It could be a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article.

An article of any length falls into this category if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible,.

Way forward to a Start class

The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.

All content needs a reference.

Any editing or additional material is welcome.

See:Pott Shrigley (May 2012)

Start -An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. It provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.

More detailed criteria

The article has a usable amount of good content- but is not comprehensive

The article must satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability.

Biography articles must satisfy fundamental BLP policies.

The article must provide sources to establish verifiability.

The article can be weak in many areas.

Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic.

MoS compliance non-existent.

May only address one aspect of the topic

May ramble and include superfluous material

Way forward to a C

Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised.

POVs, and original research should be culled.

Using a similar article as a model, the article should be given structure

Using a similar article as a model, the will also need substantial improvements in content.

See:Shrigley Hall (May 2012)

C class-The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. It is 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.

More detailed criteria

The article is developed in style.

The article is developed in structure

The article is developed in writing quality.

The article will fails one or more of the 6 criteria for B-Class.

It may have some gaps or missing elements.

It may contain some irrelevant dross

Way forward to a B.

Edit to fulfil all 6 criteria for B-Class. So:-

• B1:The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either < -ref-> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required.

Rule of thumb 1 per paragraph- and one each time a wow fact is introduced

• B2: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.

Try: Toponomy, History, Governance, Geography, dickie birds, geology, industry- military herige and history in general. Look to a similar article.

• B3: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.

• B4: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- but it wouldn't hurt.

• B5: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.

It can fail on the relevance of the images - the old guard don't like too many pictures as it destroys the display on a smart phone. All imagtes need an alt= text for the non sighted reader describing the contents of the image.

• B6: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.

It fails when it lacks too many sections and appeals mainly to a sectional audience.

See:New Mills (May 2012) It failed a Good Article Review Suspect that this is a B class as it mainly failed on WP:Verifiability.

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.

More detailed criteria

The Way forwared to a GA

A good article is:

1. Well-written:
   1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
   2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
   1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
   2. 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);
   3. it contains no original research; and
   4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
   1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
   2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
   1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
   2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not

See: B : Poynton

Wikipedia:Good article criteria GAs are about one editor nominating the article for assessment, and one editor assessing against the criteria

Wikipedia:Featured article criteria: FAs are largely about high quality prose. User:Tony1/How to improve your writing