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 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.
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Wikipedia}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment 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;
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
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.
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.
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.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; 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.
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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
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.
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);
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.
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.
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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title.
Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title.
Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes.
Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles.
Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.
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):
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.
Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.
Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.
Requesting reassessment of Ipplepen after expansion, referencing, general alignment to WPG, updating factual information and addition of graphic 12:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Requesting reassessment of James W. Kitchens. Has been expanded. I assessed as C. It could be B I think. Let me know if you think it could be worthy of me going and nominating it for higher elsewhere. Thanks! Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Astroboa nuda, as it now adequately discusses the subject matter; it's no longer start class 02:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)02:17, 20 November 2024 (UTC)~~
Not done: Very good article but a number of paragraphs (tagged) do not have citations, so I don't think it qualifies for B class. The policy that statements "likely to be challenged" must be cited is a little unclear but some significant parts are uncited.. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thank you! The citations are actually a misunderstanding on my part. I worked from one in-depth source a lot, and I've never been clear on citing a single source across consecutive paragraphs. No worries, I'll make those clearer, but did you notice anything else that would keep it C class? If so, I can leave a note for the next editors. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing obvious, although I really only looked to see if everything had a citation. Given the sheer length I assume coverage is adequate -- seems good to me. Mrfoogles (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VP-Expert - Requesting a general quality assessment for this article on an expert system shell. More detail and context have been added to the article since its initial creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bns1743 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Section 28: I have made significant edits to the page with the aim of improving its overall quality. (Apologies for making multiple edits to the reassessment section, I haven't done this before and kept making errors!) -- Itssymbiotic (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)22:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Not done This is already a B, it doesn't get higher here; you need to do an actual nomination for A class, featured, or good article. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I rated this Start because it had an image, but did you write this in any way using ChatGPT? Multiple paragraphs cited sources as saying things they did not say; one paragraph cited a nearly blank statistics page with a couple user reviews as if it overviewed criticism; and another cited a blog post as if it provided a summary of what all criticism focused on. The names of the five manager options, "Delores, Fast Ed, Big John, Abdul Makash, and Lucky" appear in none of the sources, including the one formerly cited. The article also reads somewhat like a well-prompted LLM would produce, on vibes. I have tagged it as possibly having LLM involvement. If you did not use ChatGPT to write any of the article, please remove the tag. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done @LukasSimeone Rating Start per images; not a lot of citations, though. I don't know if you were the one who added it but in case you were, I don't think GeoNames is a reliable source -- it appears to be user-editable. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rating at least Start per images. Just so you know, if your article has a relevant picture, you can just rate it up to Start yourself without worrying about it. I am not sure if this article qualifies for a C -- that would require it to cite multiple reliable secondary sources, and while I think that maps don't count as secondary sources I'm not really sure. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as C: great infobox and decent content; needs more consistent inline citations (and more sources?) for B class though. Structure may also need more refinement for B-class; coverage and style improvements wouldn't hurt either, but aren't as critical. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rated as C: infobox is great and good coverage; mainly just needs more consistent citation for B-class. However, style could also use some improvement, and maybe structure a bit more (e.g. a long-term Consequences section). -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as Start: good infobox, list of sources, and the initial structure is there. Style isn't too bad either. Maybe close to a C with a bit more expansion, but needs more consistent inline citations. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as Start: good infobox, citations, and the initial structure is there, but article needs significant expansion. Style can also be opaque. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as Start: good infobox, citations, and the initial structure is there, but article needs significant expansion. Style can also be opaque. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as Start: great infobox and structure, with probably enough content for C. Mostly lacking citations though and style can also be opaque. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as Start: good infobox, citations, and the initial structure is there, but article needs significant expansion. Style can also be opaque. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as Start: good infobox and citations, and the initial structure is there, but article needs significant expansion. Style can also be opaque. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as Start: infobox is great and there is some structure, but article needs significant expansion. Style can also be opaque. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rated as Start: infobox is good and statements are cited. However, effectively still just a lead (despite having a section header); n.b. that a couple citations may be primary; no major grammatical errors either but style can be murky. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Rated C per good coverage; uncited parts, especially the first paragraph in the body, which has 3 citations approaching the end but none in the middle; it is unclear which is intended to support the rest of the paragraph. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Rated C: coverage is good but article is missing some citations & the translation is a little hard to understand sometimes (the word choices, like "successive deaths" and "permanent ambition"). Mrfoogles (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bumped to B: great content & citations with decent media, but still closer to C than A. Refine structure next, then tweak style & maybe expand a bit more? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept at C: ample coverage and citations, but I probably emphasize flow and supplements more than others. Refine structure next, then tweak style and add supplements? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bumped straight to C: good citations and media, but still closer to Start than B; expand significantly & improve structure next? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept at C: ample coverage and citations, plus top-level structure isn't bad. I probably emphasize flow and supplements more than others though; definitely B-worthy with an infobox, a few other supplements, and if the "wall of text" in Causes is made more digestible. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept at C: good coverage and citations, but I probably emphasize flow and supplements more than others. Besides missing an infobox and other supplements, the article structure definitely feels loose, like it's not covering all aspects. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bumped straight to B; plenty of coverage & citations. Ready for A-class nomination with more media & less technical language? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bump to B with caveats: there are a few unsourced bits, but edits happen all the time so I personally think a B is still OK for such a fleshed-out article. Those are the priority though. Overall article structure is great, but maybe it could still be consolidated a bit or the layout improved? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bump straight to B; in-depth with good coverage, images, and citations. Only issue I noticed while skimming was technical language. Maybe worth nominating for A? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bump to B with caveats: there are a few unsourced bits, but edits happen all the time so I personally think a B is still OK for such a fleshed-out article. Those are the priority though, then the article definitely needs to be consolidated some. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bump to B with caveats: there are a few unsourced bits, but edits happen all the time so I personally think a B is still OK for such a fleshed-out article. Those are the priority though, then refine the article structure next. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 04:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bumped to (a solid) B: great content, citations, & structure plus decent media. Maybe A class after tweaking style & refinement of the Geographic section? -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept as Start; coverage and context seems incomplete (almost all about Soviet historical controversies but he teaches Medieval English Lit?), majority of sources are authored by subject. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, do not reassess it; I retract my reassessment request. I was looking at its assessment on X-Tools, and it said on there that its assessment was "Unknown". The same applies to the Hajnal line and wolf articles whose reassessment I requested; they were listed as "Unknown" while I was browsing through X-Tools, but they are actually assessed articles. I wonder if there is something that could potentially be done to fix this deficiency on X-Tools in order to prevent such confusion from arising again in the future. Anteosaurus magnificus (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Romerodus. This page was originally a one sentence stub and was rated accordingly, but has been significantly expanded. Published information on this animal is extremely sparse, so I'm not sure that the article could be expanded much further without ending up out of scope. Gasmasque (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No action Kept at C for now; extremely close to a B, just had some trouble following whether claims were cited or inferred. Left a comment on the talk page with more details. -- Zar2gar1 (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Double Take (group). Was a stub but I made further edits to it. As the article's creator, would like an outside reassessment but I think this would be a start, maybe lower-end C-class at this point? Thanks Soulbust (talk) 09:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Hi @Joeykai, Upgraded assessment from "Stub" to "Start" class for now. Rater ORES prediction gives B-Class or higher (71.6%), however article has a red-link, and "Honors" section contains only one source & needs additional sources. With these improvements article easily can be C-Class & ready for B-Class review. Regards, JoeNMLC (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Rated a C, almost a B but I have a few minor quibbles with the sourcing, which I tagged citation needed. The B-class criteria requires everything likely to be challenged to be cited -- out of the 4, 2 are just describing the content of the movies, where I think it could use a citation but is not likely to be challenged (very minor issue). The one thing I think needs to be cited is the kamishibai inspiration of the final act of the live-action film (see the tags there). If that is fixed, I'd say feel free to rate it a B. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response. The requested citations can be sourced from references already included elsewhere in the article, so I added them and changed the rating to B. Thank you for the feedback. PetalMechArtist (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Rated C. Tagged several statements without citations that need to be fixed, otherwise meets B criteria; if these are cited, feel free to reassess it yourself as B. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Saab 2000. Current grade is C because of a lack of references during previous assessment. A substantial literature search and adding in-line citations to such wiki article has be conducted in 2024 at which a B grade, I believe, deserves. Thank you for reassessment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KCLAW1207 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Rating C. I think it can be rated B except for one uncited statement I tagged with citation needed; if that is cited to a reliable source, feel free to rate it B yourself (click "edit source" on the talk page & change |class=C to |class=B). Noting that other than here there mostly isn't a large number of people reassessing random articles, so it's not a surprise the rating was not changed. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I have upgraded the article to B-class after another user has made improvements to the article by correcting some of my mistakes, such as in properly citing URLs and correcting minor grammatical errors. I will later be going through my book collection and reliable online resources on this species to further improve this article, as well as other articles on the Grevillea genus. Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of The Culling (video game) currently listed as start class but I think the article is good enough for either C or B class. (aplogies if this is formatted wrong, it's my first time doing this so may have made a mistake someomewhere) Knockknock987 (talk)
Done: Rated as a C; nearly a B but there are a lot of places where a citation is present at the end of two sentences; if both are cited to the same citation it should probably be after both for clarity (sometimes it is obvious the two sentences must be cited to the same source, but sometimes it is unclear). Also a few statements in the Reception section need sources (links are needed to the reviews so they can be found), but if that was fixed I think it would qualify for B class. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Paul Oluikpe: It was classified initially as Start. Significant edits have occurred since then and I am requesting for a reclassification - @User talk: cfaso2000
@Iheartmylibrary22 I think the article is extremely close to a B class but I believe it needs a little more expansion. The C class criteria is extremely broad so I like to classify articles as B class if they contain 30,000 bytes of data which you can view by clicking View History. This is the place where you can get a reassessment. FloridaMan2122:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Village (board game). I have taken the article from a couple of sentences to multiple sections that provide a holistic overview of the game. It is currently rated as a stub and I would understandably like this to change. Thanks for your time! SJD Willoughby (talk) 20:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Article is well-cited and spotcheck of sources seems reliable. Article is long and seems to cover things well; might not be that far from the Good Article criteria though the process for that I hear can be a nightmare. In any case, rated B. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🟡 Requesting assessment of Polynesian Mythology (book). Currently rated Start class, but I think it's sufficiently sourced to be higher than that. 15:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)15:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: It looks like @JoeNMLC added something to the talk page about a review 2 months ago, but never filled it out? Removing the outdated notice from the talk. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🟡 Requesting assessment of Roy Meadow. Currently C-class, but seems to me to be at least B-class. The 'talk' contributions are almost all considerably dated, and citations seem sufficient and in good order. Thank you Pierrelapin (talk) 12:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Cimmerians: Currently rated as a C-class, all of the ratings (some C, some B, some Start previously) were done 2009-2011 and are outdated. I think it might qualify as a B-class: I checked and almost every single statement is sourced, there are a number of images, and the article is very long (and so likely covers things). Have not checked but am not particularly worried about jargon & well-writtenness given it's a history article; structure is good. But, I'm not 100% sure about whether it covers everything and I haven't read the whole thing, so I'm looking for a second opinion before rating it B. Mrfoogles (talk) 05:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
🟡 Requesting assessment of Community education, currently not assessed and has been marked as requiring improvement and cleanup. I have added in references, information, images and amended language and grammar. Thanks! (O2Q357Ys) 18:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done @BiHCluster: I think it almost satisfies all the B-class criteria, but I have a few questions on the content and the citing. First, I think the article needs to include what happened to the unit (it went away in 1995), given that it’s written in the past tense. Second, in the 1st paragraph of history, it looks like a primary source is cited. Does this also provide a citation for the description of why it was created in the first sentence of the paragraph? Usually from what I know primary sources by the creators should not be cited for why things are created, or at least attribution should be given. I also tagged a number of places in the units section where the sources for statements are not clear. Rating it as a C for now. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles Thank you for you time and input it was greatly appreciated. I hope that I have successfully corrected the missing information and was wondering if I may trespass on your time again and ask for reassessment. Kind regards. BiHCluster (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done: I'm still not sure about the high reliance on non-independent, primary, or self-published sources (though, maybe the last is a stretch to describe UN proceedings). However, I think the B criteria don't mention the sources all being good, so I think it qualifies considering it cites a book & white paper as well as some modern US government accounts of laws. Feel like it would definitely benefit from more book/news sources (though those are hard to find): rating it a B. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Heterostylum robustum: ended up writing the thing from a stub and I think it may qualify for a B. Pretty much everything is cited, and I think the content has most of what is necessary. Changed from Stub->Start myself earlier. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done @Ktkvtsh. Much of the article (or at least the cited portions) just lists references to the Bahlikas. For example, the Locations/In Bahlika section (I renamed a couple to make them shorter, revert them if you like) just lists a bunch of references, each with its own paragraph, and then has a paragraph arguing for a conclusion based on the evidence. Articles are supposed to cite sources directly stating something is true, or stating that arguments are made based on X,Y,Z, but the truth is not known, but not make their own arguments: this is either original research or citations are needed. Good citing for the references to the text, though. The "Remote connection" section has a very similar problem. Because one the B-criteria is that article are well cited, this fails.
Bahlika kings section could probably use some kind of organization rather than just being a list of occurences, though that doesn't relate to B-class criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the article may qualify for B-class if you can cite those unsourced paragraphs that synthesize the evidence. Ideally, in my opinion, those should be more prominent rather than the specific references: article are supposed to summarize the truth or summarize the state of argument on a topic rather than make arguments themselves. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrfoogles, thanks. I will work on that. Besides the sources, would you say the article reads well? The major issue when I started working on it was the grammar and spelling. Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Joseph Agbakoba. (Comment: It was previously assessed as Start class due to insufficient content in the article and citation warnings. I have included a couple more sections to the article but I'd like to know why exactly it has citation warnings and how this can be resolved). Ugoanums (talk) 10:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Lockheed Martin (talk). (comment: It only lacks "sufficient sourcing and citiatons" at the time it was last assessed. I would personally like to know what is missing specifically. Thank you) - BeeboMan (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not sure either. Looking at the article today, I tagged a couple places where it's missing citations, but it's not egregious. That said, it could be someone was complaining about which sources were being cited: haven't looked at them but if 90% are just Lockheed Martin itself that could be a problem. I don't see that obviously glancing at the source list. The biggest current problem with the article is the way the History section is almost entirely a timeline: it's a list of many events and dates with few connections between them. Other than that and the independence of the sources (which I haven't checked) it seems like it's probably a B, though I'm not rating it myself. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @BeeboMan, the article 100% is a B-class. What did catch my eye were many dead links and citation needed warnings, which need to be taken care of. Once those are fixed, it can be rated a B class article. FloridaMan2123:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Rated as a Start b/c decent amount of content, images & ok sourcing. Didn't rate C because there wasn't that much content & History, Adoption were kind of short Mrfoogles (talk) 22:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YDone: Rated as a C; close-ish to a B but has issues. Tagged a couple citation issues, not sure if so much of some parts of the article should be cited to a tourism website, not sure about importance of local history museum. Very good coverage of prehistory, modern history. Lead is very short by me. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YDone: Rated as Start b/c multiple sections & image. Not rating it C because they're minimal and it doesn't seem that amount of developed yet. Mrfoogles (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YDone: reassessed as a Start class. I recommend you add an image, map, or graphic on the article as all the copyright is expired and more citations if possible. Then it can be assessed as a C class article. FloridaMan21 (talk) 16:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Witness J. I have one question about sourcing I've included on the talk page but other than the one claim I'm happy with where the article is. 10:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)VerneDurand (talk)
YDone: reassessed as a C class. The article is good how it is considering the anonymity of Witness J. 12:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC) FloridaMan21 (talk)
Requesting assessment of LDRA. Has been substantially reworked, and in particular I'd like the Notability flag reassessed, as well as the over-all article. Currently rated as Stub, but hope for C/B rating? (Please note my declared relationship) 06:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Andrew D Banks (talk)
✔ Done: reassessed as a C class. Could use more expansion to reach a B Class but it is very close. The Notability flag has been waved. I'm aware of your declared relationship. If you have made any changes, you can re-submit for a reassessment. 07:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) FloridaMan21 (talk)
Y Done: reassessed as a B class and nominated for a Good Article since I believe it is. The Article is very well written. Great Work FloridaMan21 (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Gilmore Schjeldahl; worked on this article a bit a while ago, just noticed it wasn't assessed. Rated it a C myself; feel like it might qualify for a B, but I'm not sure. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Not sure what this should be rated but I'm noticing a large portion of the article is probably original research: rather than summarizing from articles talking about his career you inferred it from a number of articles. You're especially not supposed to say "his reporting then shifted to being about X", and then cite some articles he wrote at the time about X, because what if there were even more articles than that about Y (that's an example). The Books section is also only cited to the books themselves: because it mostly only discusses what the book say this is less bad but also a problem. If the article had good sources for everything it would probably be near B-class but there are significant issues. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both @Mrfoogles and @FloridaMan21 - thank you for your insight. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and so this is extremely helpful to be aware of, especially when it comes to using original articles. Thanks again. O2Q357Ys (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Whot! from C to B-class. I‘ve added the section: English rules. This completes the two different Whot versions that exist. Added pictures and added archived inline citations throughout the article. According to the last assessment, this was missing for the article to be a B-class. Thanks for your help. Wikinwg. 12:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NNot Done: The article needs just a little bit more citations and needs to be little bit more chunky. It's extremely close. As soon as this is done, I will reassess it as a B Class Article FloridaMan21 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
YDone: reassessed as a C class article. The article has been well improved and is close to a B class. You may remove the expansion warning on the Analysis section. FloridaMan21 (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NNot Done: Still qualifies for a Start class article as it is too short, not to mention a copyright investigation. A useful picture or graphic would be convenient. FloridaMan21 (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Whot!. I‘ve added the entire chapter: Rules and play-strategy of the Nigerian Whot-version (in section Gameplay). Added pictures and archived citations, but I can’t figure out how to change the assessment from stub to C or B class. Thanks for your help. Wikinwg. 16:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done: upgraded to a B class. Great work. For future reference, go to the talk page, then source editing to reassess, for feedback, just submit it here :)FloridaMan21 (talk) 02:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done: upgraded to a B class from a Start class. Very lengthy and well improved from its former issues. If you want a reassessment, request a new one. FloridaMan21 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done: rated as C. Not rated a B Class because there are many issues such as neutrality, encyclopedic tone, and unreliable citations. FloridaMan21 (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done: rated as B. Close to a good article but State and Local Government Section has a verification warning. If you believe there are enough citations or you have added more citations, you may remove the warning and submit the article for a reassessment if you wish. FloridaMan21 (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done: rating as B: only dubious criteria is the images/illustration one, but the infobox reasonably breaks up the article's text. That said it could use an image (googled for one but could not find one). The article also doesn't mention whether the ship made it to Germany. I assume it did not, but it's not clear.
✔ Done: upgraded to a B. Follows all of the B class criteria and is written similarly to its sister novel's Wikipedia page, "Eight Cousins", which is rated a B. FloridaMan21 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done: rated as C. Could use more citations and information as a good chunk of the article are tables about Qualifying classification and Race classification if possible. FloridaMan21 (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done: nominated for a good article qualification. Hopefully it gets accepted as there is no way it should be rated anything under a B class, let alone a Start class. Great Work! FloridaMan21 (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Oliver R. BarrettSuo Edits (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC). I've been expanding this article a lot, and, while it needs significant improvement, I most certainly believe it is way above the standards of a stub.[reply]
✔ Done: rated as C. Not rating as B because there are a number of unsourced parts, and I'm not confident with those criteria. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done: rating as a C. Sourcing, text, images, very good except for issues with understandability (one of the B criteria) in the lead and the deep gluteal space section (not knowing any of the terminology there I have no idea what this is). Probably nearly a B Mrfoogles (talk) 23:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done as C: Text, coverage, and presence of reliable sources seems good, but there are a number of uncited statements, so it does not qualify for B. Mrfoogles (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done @CanonNi, as this still qualifies as a Start article. I will leave a message on the talk page of things you could do to expand and improve the article. Once you work on it some more, request reassessment again. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Sc2327, upgraded assessment form Stub to C. Please note that there is a notice on the page. This article does have some spots where it is overly promotional. Once this is addressed, it can be upgraded to B. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ktkvtsh Thank you for your work. I would appreciate an example or two of the promotional lines so as to further improve the article. Best wishes. Sc2327 (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done @Isi96, with the information available in the article, this is still a Start article. There is a massive amount of inline citations. With that many sources, this article could certainly be expanded more. Ktkvtsh (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current assessment was made for the original article when it was a stub. Since then I've made the article from scratch twice. The first version got nominated for the DYK, and after it got rejected, I remade it again following the advice received. Thanks for your work. ZenZeppelin (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know where this article stands and if summary style between it and Big Excursion have been properly introduced per the duplication tag. It is not a very active area, so probably best to get an opinion here. Pietrus1 (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done @Pietrus1, upgraded assessment from Start to C.
As for where the article stands with the notice on the page, I will leave a message on the Revival Process talk page. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Opole. I never edited the article though, it's just that for me the Start class seems to be a bit too low, and I don't feel confident enough to change it on my own. Dżamper (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can I also ask if this has any affect on search engine indexing? Because I've noticed that compared to other similar articles, googling 'hp spectre' doesn't bring this article up anywhere near the top and it's way down below which is strange for a Wikipedia article. Privateeih (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any statistical reason for this, but Wikipedia entries for terms related to tech companies, such as phones, tablets, computers are usually indexed lower than the companies themselves and advertisements because they tend to be much more aggressive with ad placement and search engine optimization. Reconrabbit23:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done @Mrfoogles, it appears you have already assessed this article on 20 May 2024 as C. I do not believe this article should be re-assessed to anything other than C at this time. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I edited it a bit, then I noticed it was a stub and figured it should probably be more than that (it wasn't a stub before I edited it either, I don't think). I thought about putting it as a B, but I wasn't sure if it qualified, so I put it up here. I'll take that as it being considered a C, then. Mrfoogles (talk) 18:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done @Joeykai. This article has only one source and inline citation. This is unacceptable and must be addressed. No re-assessment can take place until this is taken care of. Ktkvtsh (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Partly done @Joeykai, upgraded assessment from Stub to C. Please address the notices I added where citations are needed and then reply here and I will upgrade to B. Ktkvtsh (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done as there are not enough inline citations verifying statements made in the article. @MemeGod ._. please add citations or remove content that can not be verified. Then re-request assessment. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Ktkvtsh, I wonder if you have time could you have a look at the edits I have made to the lists on the Literary fragment page? I've tried to address the verifiability by referencing where these notable examples have come from as well as incorporating the lists into the article proper. Thank you Alsonamedbort15 (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's my first time requesting a reassessment of any article, so please do pardon me if I make some informal requests but I think Gupta–Hunnic Wars deserves more than a C rating. Can't it be upgraded to B, GA or even an A rating? Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done @Jonharojjashi there are numerous issues that must be addressed before any re-assessment can take place. The lead is much too long. There are far too many statements that lack inline citations. There is also an issue with the neutrality of the article. Only after these things are addressed can we re-assess this article. Please re-request once these are fixed. Thanks. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of George W. Minns. It's initial assesment was in 2007, and I have added roughly 10,000 bytes in the last few months. SammySpartan (talk) 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Requesting reassessment of Regina's historic buildings and precincts. It's currently rated a "B" class, but I think that's way over-rated, for reasons discussed on the Talk page. I'm not familiar with how assessments work and would like a new pair of eyes looking at it. I will try to improve it, but I think it needs a new baseline to start with. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of ICIMOD. I have completely rewritten this page over September 2022 - April 2024, added several sections and categories to it. Its existing assessment was done in 2006. The article stands significantly improved, and is of interest to several Wikiprojects in addition to those originally visible on its talk page. (talk) 28 April 2024
Requesting an assessment of Money Money 2020. I've added over 4,000 bytes to the article, an entirely new section, added citations for almost all claims on the article and generally cleaned it up a lot. I no longer believe it should be classed as a stub. Beachweak (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a reassessment for Orbital (1991 album). I've updated the page significantly and replaced unreliable sources with more reliable ones. Also, I think this page was last assessed in 2009, and I think there has been plenty of new information added since then, not just from me. Tedster41 (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a reassesment for Shahed drones. I've added about 30,000 bytes since its previous review, which scored it at Stub Class. Rater predicts B or higher with 93.2% confidence. – Primium (talk)16:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment for 321 Coffee, which was added to the mainspace on April 12 but has undergone significant revisions. Currently ranked at Start-class, but I believe it should be C- or maybe even B-Class. Dallasoliver (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting an assessment for Amie Parnes, which was just added to the mainspace yesterday. Currently ranked at Start-class, but Rater is predicting a rating of B-Class or higher with 93.9% accuracy. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 05:17, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting an assesment for Draft:Hirohara Shrine. A user with the name User:WC gudang inspirasi disregarded WP:AFCREVIEW and moved the page from Draftspace to Mainspace. Reverted back but assesment scale still asses it as 'redirect', halting the review process. the same user have done the same unauthorized moves with other draft articles and moving it to Mainspace. Kaliper1 (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC) Retracted, Fixed![reply]
Done Assessed as B-class. Great effort. Make sure to verify anything without a citation - it looks like that honorary doctorate may have been fabricated. Reconrabbit18:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment for Botswana after re-reading, adding sources, updating data and images, adding context, and paragraphs. I would like to know if it is B-class worthy. 48JcL48 (talk) (contribs) 02:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of S. L. Rose. The page has been expanded greatly since it was originally ranked a stub when I first created it, and it definitely merits more than a stub in its current state. TarheelBornBred (talk02:32, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Carl Bunch. Originally ranked as a stub, I've expanded the page significantly. Rater predicts the article could be considered as B or higher with 86% accuracy. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done @CanonNi, as it is still Start. To get to C, the article will need more inline citations and more information. After reading, I am left wanting more on the topic. Please do this and re-request assessment. Ktkvtsh (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment/reassessment of Dee D. Jackson, which has been significantly expanded upon, cited to a greater extent and brought up to a more encyclopedic state of existence compared to its previous assessment as a stub-class article. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment/reassessment of Tiziana Rivale, which has been significantly expanded upon, cited to a greater extent and brought up to a more encyclopedic state of existence compared to its previous assessment as a stub-class article. TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done to B-class. InDimensional Very interesting topic, and it inspired me to do a little research myself. I found information on how the Omnichord has been used as a form of musical therapy, which I think will add a lot to the page. Anyway, this was well written and cited, though I wish there were more reputable/non-primary sources out there. I had to remove one of your in-line citations however as it didn't provide any information. I looked for a suitable source to replace it but I was unable to find anything, so keep that in mind when looking on how to improve the article. Cheers, Pac-Man PHD (talk) 21:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time and for the edits, I went through your changes and took some mental notes for the future. Agreed on the primary resources but there was some conflicting info about years of releases so they'll do for now. I will have to check out that article. Cheers. InDimensional (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Maarjamäe, which I expanded on majorly recently. Would the future addition of images (planning to take in spring-summer) affect the assessment? Many thanks. MartinusK (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely be at least a C class, the Evad37/rater prediction is saying "B or higher" with 90.5% accuracy. I want to also point out the transport section has no sources. Shadow311 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a reassessment of Kangaroo Route, It has not been assessed since 2007 when it was 6 sentences long and many editors (including myself) have put significant build out in the last 17 years towards the B Class checklist :). DigitalExpat (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Georgeykiwi Done content-wise it's a B-class in my opinion, I rated it "C" only because many of the references are dead, making verification difficult. If you rescue them, please ping me and I'll up the rating. Broc (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I fixed some minor style issues and rated it B-class as the article is well sourced and detailed; if you want additional feedback let me know. Broc (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a reassessment of Tapir! - I gave it an assessment of C class myself, but I'd like an independent review to see if it hits B class (I think it does, but I might be biased since I wrote it). Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 08:54, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a reassessment of Paradox of Tolerance. I spent a lot of time expanding this a few weeks ago and requested an assessment via the Philosophy WikiProject, but following the changes to the assessment process I'm resubmitting my request here. Thanks! Ddevault (talk) 09:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting assessment of Chachmei Lublin Yeshiva. Article assessed as stub class in WikiProject Poland, and start class in Wikiproject Judaism. Expansions were made, along with some recent note-worthy content. It has been greatly expanded over the past 17 years. NeverBeGameOver (talk) 04:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a reassessment for Li Yundi. It was last assessed 17 years ago in 2007. I believe it fits the criteria for B-class.
Also, I would like a reassessment of its importance. I believe it fits the criteria high, as the page is about a world-renowned pianist. Thanks EleniXDD (talk) 09:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, thanks for the assess of biography. That’s quick. Is it possible to also assess the two related wiki projects and evaluate their importance. Thanks a lot EleniXDD (talk) 09:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting an assessment for Sydney van Hooijdonk. It is currently rated Stub, and has been since 2019 despite major work on it since. I believe it fits the criteria for C-class, but would like an outside opinion on this, and if not C-class, which class it currently sits in. Christhecoolboy (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting an assessment for Tyler1. To the best of my knowledge it has not had an assessment since the article was first created in 2018. I believe it is a B class or close to it, and I would appreciate feedback to better understand the criteria for BLP articles like this. Mokadoshi (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done I think Start class makes sense here because the majority of the article is specifically about the South African branch which no longer exists. I also believe extraneous detail should be removed. For example, a whole paragraph on Schultz's fiancé is not significantly relevant to a business with over 50 locations. With more English sources about the overall business this article would be greatly improved. I understand the frustration since there aren't many English sources. As an aside, it's worth mentioning that the article relies heavily on references to TimesLive which is on the Usable but be cautious list. I also fixed a minor duplicated reference. Mokadoshi (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I actually put in a request on WikiProject Netherlands out of a hope that some people there could grab some more info from Dutch sources just to make sure I don't mess up on some translation, but I'll probably end up just doing it myself.
As for the fiancé situation I forgot to put in what actually made it a problem, the fact that the business was under threat. That being said, I don't think it was ever really specified why the business was under threat because of her being barred from the country so I'll probably just remove that para entirely. CommissarDoggoTalk?10:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BEN917 Done rated as Start but the article has major sourcing issues, most of the statements in the page are unsourced. Please reach out if you need help with referencing. Broc (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of both the Tui T. Sutherland and Wings of Fire (novel series) pages. With deepest gratitude offered to all those involved, I have led the charge in undertaking major overhauls of the entirety of the content of the aforementioned articles, respectively commencing these efforts in August 2022 and January 2023. Seeing as to how these pages have changed exponentially since these efforts were launched, it appears that a quality assessment is again in order. Considering the interdisciplinary output of the affiliated WikiProjects these pages are related, coupled with my consistent presence on these pages (simultaneously preventing vandalism/fancruft and holistically improving sections), an "outsider's" perspective would be most welcome at this time. As always, feedback is welcome and greatly appreciated; I thank you in advance for your time and consideration! ^^ TheMysteriousShadeheart (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done@Scientelensia: I can't judge the importance, but I updated the rating to C-class. I also tagged a couple dead links, there is space for further improvement to the article. Broc (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bob Orders has, in my estimation, proper citations and improved organization which place it around C-class as opposed to start class. Given the minor shift from start to C as the request this is very low priority. Dionysius Millertalk13:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Bertram Fletcher Robinson. I have added fully referenced and original photographs and content to this article over the past few months and I now believe it fulfils the standard required for GA standard. Therefore, please can I request a reassessment and/or feedback about how to achieve a GA rating for this article. Thanks so much in anticipation of assistance with this request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.214.91 (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Nubian ibex. I've added a lot of content over the last several months, bringing it from Start-Class to C-Class. Following further edits with in-depth citations, I would like to get the article to B-Class (and ideally GA when possible). Thank you, Bbreslau (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of Thailand. Major cleanup tags were removed, in addition to some content rewrite, which might need a quality reassessment from external observers for impartiality.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kornkaobat (talk • contribs) 13:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting reassessment of History of fantasy. Massive swathes of unsourced or questionably relevant information, all written in a partisan, essayist style. Recently merged with another article so I can only hope the issues were a result of that because there is no way an article this bad should have slipped forward to B-class. Some of the sources are also derived directly from modern authors like Moorcock which seems like it could easily lead to biased writing - Fantasy is a form of genre fiction first and foremost, a work simply having supernatural elements does not warrant inclusion here without strong corroboration. Orchastrattor (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a re-assessment of Emblem of Andhra Pradesh. It was in a stub category on the mainspace with start class assessment on it's talk page when I first took up the task to improve it. I have left some considerable amount of time after my development of the article to consider any more user requests and other consideration and everything seems to be fine now. 456legendtalk08:43, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done@456legend: the article lacks clarity. There are too many foreign words without explanation or links, which makes it almost impossible to understand for a casual reader. If clarity is improved, it could be upped to C-class. Ping me if you need help. Broc (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broc I apologize for not addressing this earlier. I have now rectified the issue and provided clarification for the words. Could you please review the article now? 456legendtalk03:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a re-assessment of Circa (company), I added some more details to it, some more references and pushed it past what I would see as a stub - looking for some eyes on it to see whether I'm right on that. Thanks in advance. CommissarDoggoTalk?19:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FL
GA
A
Done - Joeykai, I updated from Stub to C-class as article is well written with adequate citations. JoeNMLC (talk) 10:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Already done by @Mrfoogles, who assessed as B. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Very good article but a number of paragraphs (tagged) do not have citations, so I don't think it qualifies for B class. The policy that statements "likely to be challenged" must be cited is a little unclear but some significant parts are uncited.. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
