Wikipedia:WikiProject Surrey/Assessment

WikiProject Surrey

General information (edit · changes)

• Main project page
• Portal
• Participants
• Articles in Wikiproject scope
• Article alerts
• Article requests

• Infoboxes to be used in writing articles
• Templates for user talk pages
• Article guidelines (list of relevant guidelines by type)

Things you can do (edit)

WikiProject Surrey tasks: Join the project Discuss the project and our articles Expand our shortest articles Assess our articles Remove errors from our articles view • edit • history • watch

Surrey article statistics

This table is updated by a bot roughly every three days.
View full worklist

Surrey-related articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA				10			10
FL			2	3			5
GA	1	8	5	20			34
B	3	7	68	140		2	220
C	1	16	198	450		7	672
Start			9	685	4	20	718
Stub				217		31	248
List		3	8	35		17	63
Category					523		523
File					2		2
Portal					1		1
Project					6		6
Template					33		33
NA			4	28	56		88
Other					3		3
Assessed	5	34	294	1,588	628	77	2,626
Unassessed						22	22
Total	5	34	294	1,588	628	99	2,648
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 8,494			Ω = 4.47

Welcome to the Assessment team of WikiProject Surrey. First we invite you to join this having read our criteria, but if not, then to submit your requests here for any team member to work on.

Assessment is done in a standard fashion through parameters in the {{WPSurrey}} project banner on the talk page of any Surrey-related articles; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Surrey-related articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for our automatically generated worklist (see right).

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 who
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? : Just add {{WPSurrey}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WPSurrey}} 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 talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles? : Any member of WikiProject Surrey 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. Can I request that someone else rate an article? : Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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.
8. 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. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
9. 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!
10. What if I have a question not listed here? : If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact the project coordinators directly.

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WPSurrey}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPSurrey
 |class=
 |importance=
}}

If the article is lacking references, add the line: unref=yes, along with the {{refimprove}} tag on the main article page.

• Become familiar with the quality scale and importance scale as listed below.
• Then for each review:

1. Tag an article related to this project (or look at a tagged article).
2. Read the article and analyse it.
3. Place your assessment in the {{WPSurrey}} banner on the articles talk page (according to the scales below).
4. Unless the reasoning for an assessment is self-evident, such as assessing a very short article as Stub-class and Low-importance, please place a summary of your assessment on the article's talk page. This should include a rationale for your choice of ratings, and possibly suggestions for future contributors on how to improve the article's quality rating. If the assessment is likely to be controversial you may wish to leave a note about it on the main project talk page.

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Surrey}} 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):

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

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

Note: You should not assign any GA, A, FA or FL grades arbitrarily. These grades must pass through official Wikipedia channels and undergo a peer review process.

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: 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. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. 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.	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: 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. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; 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. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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.	List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018)
A	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.	Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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.	Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019)
B	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. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. 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. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	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.	Psychology (as of January 2024)
C	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.	Wing (as of June 2018)
Start	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.	Ball (as of September 2014)
Stub	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.	Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014)
List	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.	List of literary movements

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 Surrey.

Note that the 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.

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. If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Old and fulfilled requests are periodically removed from the list.

Please note: If you aim for an article to be promoted to GA, A, or FA class, please consider requesting a peer review as well so the article can be exposed to closer scrutiny from a broader group of editors. This section is also not intended to replace Wikipedia:Good article nominations and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates.

Edit section to add a new request

Add requests to the bottom of this list, please also sign your request by adding four tildes (~~~~):

*Undershaw - please could someone take a quick look at this article which appears to be developing nicely. Thanks. Prspiring (talk) 03:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Farnham - as I've made significant edits to the page recently, could somebody else check to see if it should be regraded. Thanks. --Mrmatiko (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Redhill - as I've made significant edits to the page recently, could somebody else check to see if it should be regraded. Thanks.Adam37 (talk) 09:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nork, Surrey - I've worked on this considerably over the last year or so, so "Start" is no longer applicable. It is fairly stable now. Thanks. Jmchutchinson (talk) 06:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An alphabetical list of those of us who are active within the Assesssment Department of WikiProject Surrey, to join, add your name to the list:

• Adam37
• Glanis
• pbl1998
• willrocks10