Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageTalkEmbassyRequested
Articles		MembersPortalRecognized
content		To doHelp

Welcome to the assessment department of the United States WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about the United States or the people of the United States. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject United States}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed into the appropriate sub-categories of Category:United States articles by quality and Category:United States articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
See also the general assessment FAQ
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject United States}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject United States}} 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 United States 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. 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.
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.

Instructions

[edit]

Quality assessment

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject United States}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class United States articles category)  FA
FL (for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class United States articles category)  FL
A (for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class United States articles category)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class United States articles category)  GA
B (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class United States articles category) B
C (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class United States articles category) C
Start (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class United States articles category) Start
Stub (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class United States articles category) Stub
List (for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class United States articles category) List
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class United States pages category) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed United States articles category) ???
For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:
FM (for featured media only; adds them to the FM-Class United States pages category)  FM
Category (for categories; adds them to the Category-Class United States pages category) Category
Draft (for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class United States pages category) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds them to the File-Class United States pages category) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds them to the Portal-Class United States pages category) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class United States pages category) Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class United States pages category) Template
The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds them to the Disambig-Class United States pages category) Disambig
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds them to the Redirect-Class United States pages category) Redirect

Quality scale

[edit]
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. Statue of Liberty
 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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 United States cities by population
 FM Pictures that have attained featured picture status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
More detailed criteria
A featured picture:
  1. Is of a high technical standard.
    • It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance.
    • It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies (examples of common technical problems).
    • Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements.
    • Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed.
  2. Is of high resolution.
    • It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height (1500×1500px); larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred (further information on image size).
      • Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration.
      • Note that vector graphics in SVG format omit any requirement for any pixel count.
      • Animations and video may be somewhat smaller.
  3. Is among Wikipedia's best work.
    • It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
    • It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative.
    • A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide.
    • commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia.
  4. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:File copyright tags.
  5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
    • The image is used in one or more articles. It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image.
    • A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.
  6. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.
  7. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English. A complete file description:
    • Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable.
    • Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other medium. Geotagging photographs of identifiable places is encouraged. This entails providing the coordinates of where the camera was when the medium was recorded to an appropriate degree of precision no less than ~10 km² (see Commons:Geocoding, or Template:Coord if the image is hosted on the English Wikipedia).
    • States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc). It is suggested that additional relevant information that becomes known during the course of the nomination be subsequently included in the file description.
    • May include languages other than English but there must be an English version available that meets this criterion. The file name may be in a language other than English.
  8. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.
    • Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive.
    • Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.
    • More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text.
    • Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
    • Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.
 The page contains a featured image, sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:American World War II senior military officials, 1945.JPEG
 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. 24th Infantry Division (United States)
 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 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. South Dakota
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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. New York City
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. Civil rights movement
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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. AFL–CIO
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. Flora of the United States
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 capitals in the United States
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:United States
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. 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. New Amsterdam (disambiguation)
File Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:Flag of the United States.svg
Portal Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. Portal:United States
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject United States
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles. List of United States submarine classes
Template 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. Template:United States topics
NA Any non-article page that fits no other classification. The page contains no article content. Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified. User:BrendelSignature/Income inequality in the United States

Importance assessment

[edit]

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

{{WikiProject United States|importance=???}}

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

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

Importance scale

[edit]

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of the United States.

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.

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. United States, New York City, Washington, D.C.
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Austin, Texas
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Fat Man, Federal Communications Commission
 Low 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. 509th Tactical Fighter Squadron
 NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. Template:United States topics
 ??? Subject importance has not yet been assessed.


Requests for assessment

[edit]

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. For assessment of articles above B class (GA, A, FL or FA) please submit them through the regular process.

  1. The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is a film article from 2013. It is marked as Start class, but I think it is more like C class, possibly B class. -- 109.76.152.79 (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wakefield, Washington, D.C. article was greatly expanded to add historical information, description of local public facilities added, and references. It is currently listed as a stub.
  3. Aquidneck Island Article has been improved and expanded since its last assessment. Requesting reassessment. PaintedCarpet (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Evans County, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - I've been working on this article quite a bit, off and on for a while now. I'd appreciate it if someone would look it over and see if it's ready to move up to B-Class and, if not, what I need to do to get it there.Reb (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  5. History of United States postage rates Article has been improved and expanded since its last assessment. It is currently listed as a stub. Please reassess it. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Lake Chelan
  7. Frankie J. Alvarez - New article. Please assess. Thanks! Luminum (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kenner, Louisiana - Possible Mid on importance scale. Bmhs823 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  9. United States Coast Guard Auxiliary - Article has been greatly improved with greater citations, more media and better formatting. Also, if the 2000 PGA Championship is medium importance, this article at least deserves medium importance. (talk) 0600 , 9 Sep 2015 (UTC)
  10. McIntosh County, Georgia I have been working on improving the article. Please reassess. Thank you, Reb1981 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Burlington Free Press Made significant additions - please reassess - no longer start-class, thanks (Strigg) 11:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  12. List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America This is an extremely notable, high-traffic, comprehensive, frequently edited article. This has been quite a topic in the news. And something like 99% of the content has been added in the last month alone. Please reasses. Fluous (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Covington County School District (Mississippi) - Requesting Article Review - Using my own understanding, I assessed this as a C, but as I want an outside opinion as to where it should start. It was previously unassessed in any form.
  14. Columbia Park (Kennewick) has had substantial edits since its last assessment. DJ Cane (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Herman Vandenburg Ames was previously rated C-class but has since been significantly expanded and is in the never-ending GA queue. Chetsford (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Jean jacket is currently un-assessed but has been featured at DYK. Chetsford (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Pacific Architects and Engineers is currently un-assessed but has been featured at DYK. Chetsford (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Barnet Nover was previously assessed as Start class but has since been expanded. Chetsford (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Viva América is rated as a Start Class but has received additional reference citations and links since its inception. Many thanks in advance for a new assessment!104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)PS[reply]
  20. Karankawa people was rewritten recently; this article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment.
  21. Treaty of Aranjuez (1779) C class but extensively rewritten; the Treaty relates to Spanish participation in the Revolutionary War, which is a little covered area of the war. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:29, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Robert Coles (settler) has been improved.Diogenes99 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  23. After the Ball (book) is an article that currently lacks an assessment for this project. Requesting one. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  24. The View (talk show) is a GA-Class article that has just been added to the WikiProject. KyleJoantalk 20:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Los Alamos, New Mexico Requesting assessment. Multiple updates to format, structure, content etc. Patrick Fisher (talk) Patrick Fisher 18:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Rio Grande Valley Large content update including addition of history section. Currently marked as a start class article. There have not been hardly any other editors other than myself. --Jmjosh90 (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Harrison family of Virginia has just been added to the US project after promotion to GA. No assessments were made. I have assessed as GA based on promotion and importance of Mid, though someone other than I should look at a rating of High, as the article features multiple prominent US figures including three presidents, a founder, two Chicago mayors, and a surgeon in historic transplant work. Hoppyh (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Falcon 9 (rated low importance) and Atlas V (unrated) might both be mid importance as workhorses of the US spaceflight industry and soon human-rated rockets. Falcon 9 is listed as B-class in the US project and C-class in the spaceflight project. --mfb (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. American Banjo Museum I created this article recently, with 1-2 additions still to make. Should have any unreferenced sections finished this week. I suggested it be part of this Wikiproject, as a piece of Americana. Jacqke (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Kingsville, Texas Request review after major changes. Wberkey (talk) 22:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Roxbury, Massachusetts Article has been given a lot more attention to detail since it's creation sariah.sugarman (talk)
  32. Nackey Loeb - request assessment for new article Bleubsdorf (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Tenley-Friendship Neighborhood Library - request assessment Bleubsdorf (talk) 12:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Edmund Burke School - request new assessment, article has been rewritten and expanded Bleubsdorf (talk) 10:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Rocky Mount, North Carolina Rewritten and reorganized since given start class. Would appreciate assessment and any feedback. Thanks! — aegreen (talk • email) 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 2020 United States Postal Service crisis - rated Start class, but significantly expanded with lots of content (and sourcing). Would appreciate feedback, especially to make sure we are avoiding bias. Fullmetal2887 (discuss me) 23:26, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Henry R. Horsey - Please assess. Significantly expanded the stub to detail early life, career and notable litigation. Also added info box. Planning to add more early life information and include Rehobooth Beach advocacy/passage of Coastal Zone Act. Heartmusic678 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  38. United States courts of appeals - Surprised to find this article listed as only "low" importance. As the second highest level of the federal judiciary, it seems like it's a key government institution that's not of merely "specialist" interest; unless I'm missing something, it certainly seems closer to the FCC in importance to the project than it does to the 509th tactical fighter squadron (the two examples given above). Can someone please review this? CogitoErgoSum14 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Six Moon Hill Requesting re-assessment, significant improvements since original assessment in 2006 Fothergilla (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Verrado High School Improved the article a ton; need some advice on how to improve it even more. 209.82.165.136 (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  41. New Mexico chile - The article has long since been overhauled with far more comprehensive information, new sections, improved flow, and citation and cleanup; currently C-class. My goal is to have this article eventually featured. Thank you! Kehkou (talk) 07:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Perry County, Tennessee - Conducted a major overhaul of the article incorporating an expanded history, census/demographics, economics, infrastructure, and geography. Looks to be about C-class now, maybe B if we're generous. Would like this to get to GA or A eventually, but I need to expand a bit on mid-20th century history and a few other areas. nf utvol (talk) 17:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC) I think we're ready to put this up for GA consideration, thanks to those that contributed! nf utvol (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 2022 United States infant formula shortage - Requesting an assessment on this one. Thank you! ✠ SunDawn Ω (contact) 00:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Alabama literature. Requesting an assessment as a significant amount has been added to what was a stub. I would absolutely appreciate any advice on how to further improve it as well, thank you! CatVallejo (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! I really liked reading about some of the literature you mentioned in your edits. This was very thorough and comprehensive. I can tell a lot went into what you added!
    I have some suggestions for restructuring that might make for an easier read. I think potentially organizing the article by genre (fiction and biography) and maybe having a brief history section at the beginning could work better. Biographies across eras share a common theme of being primarily (auto)biographies from prominent Civil Rights advocates. (Lewis, Parks) Other memoirs also discuss adversity. If they could be grouped together and discussed in closer proximity that would be more concise/thematically logical. For fiction, in terms of notability, I'd argue some of the contemporary works rival the modern works, even if TKAM and Invisible Man are the most notable. By having all the fiction grouped together you could mention these two works alongside other works like Forrest Gump and Fried Green Tomatoes... like you do in the opener. These works are all similar in that they are about 20th century Alabama and to varying degrees deal with race. To keep the fiction section from being too long, you could truncate the plot summaries from the lesser known works.
    Once again, great job! I'm glad this article is no longer a stub :) Kclarkbar (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Ohio House of Representatives. Requesting re-assesment to elevate it from Stub class, since it has a good deal of up-to-date, basic information.
  46. Clifton Newman This article was created by me. Hoping to get it assessed! Important to note that he is in the national media spotlight rn due to an ongoing trial. -- Philipnelson99 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Finneytown Secondary Campus Hi, I expended this article quite a bit from its current stub status and I think it should be reassessed to be a start class article. -- Ukraineball91 (talk) 02:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Marlon Coleman Currently unassessed, I created this article last week. If someone could assess it for me that would be great.--Trey Wainman (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  49. City Line (Spokane, Washington - article has been greatly expanded, with written content, citations, images, graphics, etc. since its last rating.Jdubman (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Kenneth Chesebro who has been identified as the architect of the Trump fake electors plot used by the Trump campaign to change the outcome of the 2020 election. I am hoping for an importance reassessment. This list looks like it may not be very active, and I am not sure it's for importance. I'll keep poking around and will hopefully find the right place for this request. --Utahredrock (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Old Ironsides (trophy) has had extensive expansion and stylistic changes, the importance of the article remains low but I believe the article has gone beyond its start-class rating Dionysius Millertalk 13:43, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Belinda Sutton Because she was enslaved, some areas are not fully detailed. But she was very important in the arc of reparations for enslavement. Please reconsider her importance.
  53. Wolfowitz Doctrine: The article has been thoroughly revised and expanded with extensive references to primary and scholarly sources. Could someone please review the current “C-class, Low-importance” rating? The doctrine arguably marks a defining moment in post-Cold War U.S. strategy and may merit a higher importance rating.Gabel1960 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Fat Man I don't see how this could possibly be labeled as anything less that high-level importance for the United States. Together with Little Boy, it ended World War II in the Pacific. How can it be judged high-importance for Japan and engineering but only mid-Importance for the country that engineered it and dropped it on Japan? It seems to me the Fat Man should be rated as top-level importance for the US, Japan, and engineering, because it, along with Little Boy, changed the course of human history, but if other editors see otherwise, at the very least it should be high-importance.
  55. Little Boy This article is rated as low-importance in the US and mid-importance in explosives. This is the world-changing first atomic bomb! Please raise the ratings to top-level importance.

Add new requests above this line

Backlogs

[edit]

Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:


Statistics

[edit]
United States article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Listing, Log, and Stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot)
Daily log of status changes
WP1.0 Assessment table
United States articles by assessment categories
Importance→
Quality↓
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 12 80 218 870 0 5 1,186
A 0 4 35 58 0 0 98
GA 16 146 654 5,161 0 182 6,161
B 132 919 2,261 14,572 0 2,623 20,509
C 57 977 3,990 49,057 10 15,142 69,231
Start 5 777 6,897 174,260 47 59,018 241,008
Stub 0 114 1,909 157,267 76 54,983 214,351
FL 2 35 55 403 0 1 497
List 3 186 1,143 14,053 203 2,770 18,359
Future 0 0 0 0 0 0 −5
Category 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
Disambig 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
FM 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
File 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
Portal 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
Project 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
Redirect 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
Template 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 −1
Unassessed 0 3 2 259 12 1,392 1,671
Total 228 3,286 17,410 423,232 −10 136,120 573,066

Statistics automatically update (refresh).

Assessment log

[edit]
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.


June 9, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

June 8, 2026

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]
[edit]
  • Popular pages: A bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_United_States/Assessment&oldid=1269458256"