Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Biography WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Biography articles. 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.

Category:Biography articles by quality serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. Filling in a rating in the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template on the talk page of an article causes the name of that article to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Biography articles by quality.

Contents 1 Frequently asked questions 2 Instructions on how to assess a Biography article 2.1 Class parameter 2.2 Priority parameter 2.3 Core parameter 2.4 Quality scale 2.5 Priority scale 2.6 Requesting an assessment 3 Statistics 3.1 Current status 3.2 Historical counts 3.3 Monthly changes 4 Assessment log 5 Worklist

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get an article rated? 

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles? 

Any member of the Biography WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

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.

Aren't the ratings subjective? 

Yes, they are, 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!

How may I begin assessing articles? 

Assessment may be done through a variety of ways, but the most efficient is through use of the MetaData article assessment script.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

[edit] Instructions on how to assess a Biography article

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed biography articles. At present, there are over 50,000 biography articles that need assessment (e.g., that need to have a class inserted in the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template).

Biography articles to be assessed have some aspects of the {{WPBiography}} template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. First, give yourself access to the MetaData article assessment script by following the instructions at MetaData. Next, select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed biography articles. Then, look over the article in anticipation of filling out the parameters of the {{WPBiography}} template. Finally, select the appropriate answers for the MetaData script. You will be brought to the talk page where you may complete the assessment.

[edit] Class parameter

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class biography articles)
• FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class biography articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class biography articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class biography articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class biography articles)
• C (adds articles to Category:C-Class biography articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class biography articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class biography articles)
• List (adds articles to Category:List-Class biography articles)
• NA (for pages, such as redirects, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:WikiProject Biography non-article pages)
  • Dab (a more specific categorization than NA, for use on disambiguation pages)
  • Template (a more specific categorization than NA, for use on template pages; see example)
  • Cat (a more specific categorization than NA, for use on category pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed biography articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

[edit] Priority parameter

The following values may be used for the priority parameter:

• Top
• High
• Mid
• Low

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the priority scale below. Note that the priority is used on the workgroup lists only.

[edit] Core parameter

The template also has a core=yes parameter for core articles only, as selected by the Core Biographies team.

[edit] Quality scale

WikiProject Biography article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	The article has attained Featured article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended). Images. It has images that follow the image use policies and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. 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 (see summary style).	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.	Mary Shelley (as of June 2008)
FL {{FL-Class}}	The article has attained Featured list status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries. 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. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. 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.			Timeline of Jane Austen (as of March 2008)
A {{A-Class}}	The article has been endorsed by uninvolved editors at the A-Class review department of WikiProject Biography. More detailed criteria Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. 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.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help.	Milla Jovovich (as of June 2008)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has attained Good article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the good article criteria: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	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.	Theodore Kaczynski (as of July 2008)
B {{B-Class}}	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria: More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. 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 it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style.	Captain Beefheart (as of July 2008)
C {{C-Class}}	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria 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 have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or trivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.	Yma Sumac (as of June 2008)
Start {{Start-Class}}	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Samuel Beardsley (as of May 2008)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Julian Myerscough (as of June 2008)
List {{List-Class}}	Meets the criteria of a Stand-alone List, which is an article that contains primarily a list.	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 mycologists (as of June 2008)

[edit] Priority scale

Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the biography falls under. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority 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).

Article importance grading scheme

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	High probability that non-Historians would look this up. Limited to the top 200 biographies. Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world. For instance, Einstein, brilliant physicist, but his theories have affected people outside of physics and in many other countries besides his nation of origin and several generations. His ideas have changed the way people think. No member should give this rating to any biography without first getting Project approval from the other members.	Albert Einstein
High	Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin.	Patrick Henry
Mid	Important in their discipline.	John Seigenthaler, Sr.
Low	Subject is notable in their main discipline.	Morena Baccarin

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you assess an article, please remove it so that other editors will not waste time reviewing the same articles. Thanks!

Seeking an A-class rating? Go to the A-class review department and follow the instructions on that page. You might first want to submit it for a Peer Review to allow us more time to respond and review.

Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B', unless they are already rated as 'GA' by Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates.

Edit this section and place request here:

• Buffalo Killers —Zeagler (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
• Percy Shaw Jeffrey - much, much better now. Thanks! Jarry1250 (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
• Joachim Hansen (fighter) - Reassessment. Thanks! --aktsu ^(t / c) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Lauren London - I'm requesting a reassessment of the article. It's currently rated Stub-Class, even though it appears to be at least Start-Class. -- Luke4545 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
• Henrika Juliana von Liewen--85.226.44.74 (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Emerentia von Düben--85.226.44.74 (talk) 14:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Thomas Traherne - Reassessment. It's nowhere near a B yet but I think it perhaps may qualify for C. Thanks. - Sestet (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Catherine Johnson - perhaps now Start class at the least. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Nouriel Roubini - requested by Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sergey Brin - requested by Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Charles Lederer - requested by Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Herman J. Mankiewicz - requested by Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Peter Max - requested by Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Moumen Smihi - Requesting a reassessment of the article. It's currently rated Stub-Class, though it appears to be at least Start-Class.
  • Doremifasollatido (Talk | Block log | Logs), the only problem I can see is the references. Once you'd improved them, it would be up to a C even; but at the moment, it's very hard to review.Jarry1250 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Catherine of Saxe-Lauenburg, this has recently been expanded
• Marianne Ehrenström--85.226.44.74 (talk) 16:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• William Dugard - needs initial assessment Jarry1250 (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Samuel Parr - needs reassessment, currently start class Jarry1250 (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Margareta Eriksdotter (Vasa)--85.226.44.74 (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Jean-Pierre Rampal, clearly not start-class. Long, but could be better also. Punkmorten (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Biography articles		Importance
		Top	None	Total
Quality
	FA	21	542	563
	FL		67	67
	A	2	21	23
	GA	26	1171	1197
	B	113	14431	14544
	C	36	2417	2453
	Start	1	120014	120015
	Stub		353471	353471
	List		257	257
	Assessed	199	492391	492590
	Unassessed		93759	93759
	Total	199	586150	586349

[edit] Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month

	July 2006		August 2006		September 2006		October 2006		November 2006		December 2006
FA	34	3.80 %	106	0.08 %	185	0.11 %	193	0.11 %	212	0.11 %	222	0.11 %
A	9	1.01 %	57	0.04 %	77	0.05 %	95	0.05 %	95	0.05 %	104	0.05 %
GA	34	3.80 %	137	0.10 %	195	0.12 %	195	0.11 %	243	0.13 %	266	0.14 %
B	220	24.61 %	1,383	1.05 %	1,967	1.21 %	2,360	1.32 %	2,682	1.44 %	3,060	1.58 %
Start	104	11.63 %	4,107	3.13 %	5,634	3.47 %	6,621	3.71 %	7,980	4.30 %	34,554	9.37 %
Stub	67	7.49 %	3,515	2.68 %	27,816	17.12 %	41,572	23.27 %	43,715	23.59 %	46,635	24.15 %
Assessed	468	52.35 %	9,305	7.10 %	35,874	22.08 %	51,036	28.56 %	54,927	29.65 %	59,904	31.03 %
Unassessed	426	47.65 %	121,800	92.90 %	126,581	77.92 %	127,644	71.44 %	130,325	70.35 %	133,177	68.98 %
Total	894		131,105		162,455		178,680		185,252		193,081
	January 2007		February 2007		March 2007		April 2007		May 2007		June 2007
FA	238	0.11 %	248	0.12 %	270	0.10 %	286	0.08 %	300	0.08 %	317	0.08 %
A	105	0.05 %	111	0.05 %	109	0.04 %	61	0.02 %	51	0.01 %	62	0.02 %
GA	297	0.14 %	344	0.16 %	358	0.13 %	391	0.11 %	415	0.11 %	451	0.11 %
B	3,583	1.79 %	4,553	2.15 %	6,699	2.52 %	7,420	2.01 %	7,903	2.08 %	9,941	2.52 %
Start	9,617	4.98 %	12,049	6.02 %	16,774	7.92 %	29,405	11.05 %	38,107	10.04 %	60,286	15.44 %
Stub	49,852	24.91 %	62,198	29.36 %	85,677	32.02 %	207,699	56.33 %	219,635	57.87 %	240,797	61.14 %
Assessed	66,124	33.05 %	84,228	39.76 %	122,518	46.05 %	250,411	67.91 %	266,411	70.19 %	311,854	79.18 %
Unassessed	133,957	66.95 %	127,639	60.25 %	143,547	53.95 %	118,311	32.09 %	113,126	29.81 %	81,996	20.82 %
Total	200,081		211,867		266,065		368,722		379,537		393,850
	July 2007		August 2007		September 2007		October 2007		November 2007		December 2007
FA	325	0.08 %	338	0.08 %	360	0.08 %	368	0.08 %	389	0.09 %	409	0.09 %
A	73	0.02 %	67	0.02 %	72	0.02 %	73	0.02 %	74	0.02 %	22	0.005 %
GA	508	0.12 %	547	0.13 %	578	0.13 %	606	0.14 %	638	0.14 %	705	0.15 %
B	11,345	2.77 %	12,551	2.98 %	13,017	2.95 %	13,156	2.95 %	13,323	2.95 %	13,493	2.92 %
Start	72,224	17.61 %	81,464	19.33 %	88,191	19.98 %	89,645	20.13 %	91,489	20.27 %	92,968	20.14 %
Stub	251,820	61.41 %	263,069	62.41 %	284,594	64.46 %	285,629	64.15 %	288,878	64.01 %	296,518	64.22 %
List	N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A		79	0.02 %	75	0.02 %
Assessed	336,295	82.01 %	358,036	84.94 %	386,812	87.62 %	389,477	87.48 %	394,870	87.50 %	404,190	87.54 %
Unassessed	73,770	17.99 %	63,456	15.06 %	54,677	12.38 %	55,744	12.52 %	56,426	12.50 %	57,506	12.46 %
Total	410,065		421,492		441,489		445,221		451,296		461,696
	January 2008		February 2008		March 2008		April 2008		May 2008		June 2008
FA	428	0.09 %	441	0.09 %	467	0.09 %	484	0.09 %	499	0.10 %	515	0.10 %
A	19	0.004 %	19	0.004 %	20	0.004 %	22	0.004 %	20	0.004 %	22	0.004 %
GA	757	0.15 %	784	0.16 %	878	0.17 %	934	0.18 %	983	0.19 %	984	0.19 %
B	13,629	2.74 %	13,698	2.74 %	14,023	2.78 %	14,160	2.78 %	14,460	2.80 %	14,594	2.79 %
C	N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A		N/A		119	0.02 %
Start	94,615	19.03 %	95,799	19.20 %	100,651	19.92 %	103,688	20.34 %	109,457	21.19 %	112,541	21.51 %
Stub	308,861	62.11 %	311,161	62.35 %	318,234	62.99 %	323,539	63.47 %	333,698	64.59 %	340,940	65.16 %
List	93	0.02 %	92	0.02 %	106	0.02 %	108	0.02 %	109	0.02 %	114	0.02 %
Assessed	418,402	84.13 %	421,994	84.56 %	434,379	85.98 %	442,935	86.90 %	459,226	88.89 %	469,829	89.80 %
Unassessed	78,898	15.87 %	77,071	15.44 %	70,843	14.02 %	66,799	13.10 %	57,410	11.11 %	53,385	10.20 %
Total	497,300		499,065		505,222		509,734		516,636		523,214

[edit] Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class. To calculate the information for one class, where x = amount of articles in class that month and i = amount of articles in the class the previous month... Amount of articles change = x - i; Percent change = (x / i) * 100 - 100, then round up to the nearest one hundredth of a perecent.

	August 2006		September 2006		October 2006		November 2006		December 2006
FA	+72	+211.76 %	+79	+74.53 %	+8	+4.32 %	+19	+9.84 %	+10	+4.72 %
A	+48	+533.33 %	+20	+35.09 %	+18	+23.38 %	+0	+0.00 %	+9	+9.47 %
GA	+103	+302.94 %	+58	+42.34 %	+0	+0.00 %	+48	+24.62 %	+23	+9.47 %
B	+1,163	+528.64 %	+584	+42.23 %	+393	+19.98 %	+322	+13.64 %	+378	+14.09 %
Start	+4,003	+3,849.04 %	+1,527	+37.18 %	+987	+17.52 %	+1,359	+20.53 %	+1,637	+20.51 %
Stub	+3,448	+5,146.27 %	+24,301	+691.35 %	+13,756	+49.45 %	+2,143	+5.15 %	+2,920	+6.68 %
Assessed	+8,837	+1,888.25 %	+26,569	+285.53 %	+15,162	+42.26 %	+3,891	+7.62 %	+4,977	+9.06 %
Unassessed	+121,374	+28,491.55 %	+4,781	+3.93 %	+1,063	+0.84 %	+2,681	+2.10 %	+2,852	+2.19 %
Total	+130,211	+14,564.99 %	+31,350	+23.91 %	+16,225	+9.99 %	+6,572	+3.68 %	+7,829	+4.23 %
	January 2007		February 2007		March 2007		April 2007		May 2007
FA	+16	+6.72 %	+10	+4.20 %	+22	+8.87 %	+16	+5.93 %	+14	+4.90 %
A	+1	+0.96 %	+6	+5.71 %	-2	-1.80 %	-48	-44.04 %	-10	-16.39 %
GA	+31	+11.65 %	+47	+15.83 %	+14	+4.07 %	+33	+9.22 %	+24	+6.14 %
B	+523	+17.09 %	+970	+27.07 %	+2,146	+47.13 %	+721	+10.76 %	+483	+6.51 %
Start	+2,432	+25.29 %	+4,725	+39.22 %	+12,631	+75.30 %	+5,149	+17.51 %	+8,702	+29.59 %
Stub	+3,217	+6.90 %	+12,346	+24.77 %	+23,479	+37.75 %	+122,022	+142.42 %	+11,936	+5.75 %
Assessed	+6,220	+10.38 %	+18,104	+27.28 %	+38,290	+45.46 %	+127,893	+104.39 %	+16,000	+6.39 %
Unassessed	+780	+0.58 %	-6,318	-4.72 %	+15,908	+12.46 %	-25,236	-17.58 %	-5,185	-4.38 %
Total	+7,000	+3.63 %	+11,786	+5.89 %	+54,198	+25.58 %	+102,657	+38.58 %	+10,815	+2.93 %
	June 2007
FA	+17	+5.67 %
A	+11	+21.57 %
GA	+36	+8.67 %
B	+2,038	+25.79 %
Start	+22,179	+58.20 %
Stub	+21,162	+9.64 %
Assessed	+45,443	+17.06 %
Unassessed	-31,130	-27.52 %
Total	+14,313	+3.77 %

[edit] Assessment log

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.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log

[edit] Worklist

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