The assessment system allows the G.I. Joe WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles that fall under its purview, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
Are these ratings official?
No. These ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project to better prioritze work on the articles, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Drastic changes to an articles rating should typically be discussed on the articles talk before making the change.
How do I assess an article?
Consult the quality scale below; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WPGUNS banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use |class=B in the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless they actually are currently designated as such.
Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject's scope. What should I do?
Due to the large volume of articles falling under the project, occasionally a tag is added to an article that the project does not cover. Feel free to remove the tag if the article truly is not within the scope of the project. If there is any doubt, post a note on the articles talk page and discuss it.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
Feel free to change it (within reason) if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the project as a whole can discuss the issue either on the project's talk page or on the talk page of the article in question and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
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!
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments on the talk page?
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.
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length that suitably covers the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. Sufficient external literature references should be provided from (preferably) reliable third-party sources. Any third-party sources should have a solid reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Should be well illustrated when appropriate and have no copyright problems. Any article be considered for featured article candidacy should be an A-Class article before being submitted for FA status.
Adequate supporting materials such as external links and See also items.
Any editor can assign this rating after having reviewed the article as per the previously mentioned guidelines. The proper banner filed should be filled out when assigning this rating.
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may still be missing important content or contain a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
Any editor can assign this rating after having reviewed the article as per the previously mentioned guidelines.
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack one or more key elements. For example, a Start-Class article may have much useful content but lack:
a useful or descriptive image
an infobox
proper headings or properly named headings
proper section order
Any editor can assign this rating after having reviewed the article as per the previously mentioned guidelines.
The article has attained featured list status. 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.
Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.
Any editor can assign this rating. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.
Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area.
Any editor can assign this rating. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized.
Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title.
Any editor can assign this rating. 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 redirect falls under this class. The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged the original article at this location.
Any editor can assign this rating. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles.
Any template falls under this class. The most common types of template include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of template 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.
Any editor can assign this rating. 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.
Is not an article, and fits no other classification.
Any editor can assign this rating. Care should be taken to not assign this rating to articles, but only non-article pages such as Wikipedia sub-pages and project pages.
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.
FA
A
GA