User:IJBall/Assessment
 | This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Background[edit]
Article assessment is the (informal) way that article quality (e.g. content, formatting, sourcing, etc.) is assessed on English Wikipedia: "The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors."
Issue[edit]
While the "high end" of article assessment classes (e.g. Featured articles, Good articles, even B-class articles) have well defined criteria, the "lower end" of article assessment classes, especially the differences between Start-class articles and C-class articles, are much less defined, to the point of being somewhat unclear.
Purpose[edit]
The purpose of this essay to to flesh out some of the more obvious difference among Stub class articles (which are actually pretty well defined by WP:Stub), Start-class articles, and C-class articles.
Note: The following are rough guidelines (i.e. suggestions) to follow, and are not meant to be "hard and fast rules":
| Class | "Official" criteria | Depth of content | Length | Structure | Inline sourcing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. | Decent-to-moderate depth of coverage: in other words, more than just basic content | Two dozen(?) sentences or more |
At least 3 sections[Note 1] | A dozen or more references (though ≥20 references is more solid) |
| Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate reliable sources. | Basic content: gives you the most basic outline about the subject, but nothing more | At least 10 sentences (as per WP:Stub)[Note 2] |
1–2 sections | Around half-a-dozen or more references |
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category. | Bare content: basically, enough to get you pretty clearly past WP:A7 | From WP:Stub: Less than 10 sentences, or less than 250 words (or less than 1,500 characters of main text)[Note 3] | 0–1 section | 1–2 references[Note 4] |
- Notes
- ^ Meaning at least 3 textual sections – i.e. not including sections such as 'See also', 'References', and 'External links', or purely "list"-type content sections such as 'Filmography' sections.
- ^ As per the other notes, length alone doesn't guarantee promotion to 'Start' class, as the article must be sufficiently sourced in order to be promoted as well.
- ^ Articles that are longer than this, but which are very poorly sourced, should probably be left at 'Stub' class, rather than be promoted to 'Start' class, as per "all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category".
- ^ Very good 'Stub' articles (e.g. those passed through WP:AfC) may have more references – perhaps half a dozen. Other 'Stub' articles that are created directly in 'main space' (without having gone through WP:AfC first) may have zero references and be completely unsourced.
Analysis[edit]
The two most basic criteria for assessing whether an article is at Start-class, or whether it has achieved C-class, are article length and extent of sourcing.
Article length[edit]
In very rough terms, a Start-class article will usually have only one or two separate primarily textual sections, in addition to the lede, while a C-class article is likely to have three (or more) separate textual sections – i.e. not including non-textual 'See also', 'References' and 'External links' sections (and also not including primarily list-based content sections, such as a Filmography section, which are found in many BLP's-type articles). Taking BLP's as an example, a Start-class article will have something along the lines of a 'Early/Personal life' section, and a 'Career' section, but no other substantial textual portions of the article besides the lede. A C-class BLP article will likely have more than just a 'Life' and 'Career' section, and may even see the 'Career' section itself divided into subsections (e.g. Film and Television subsections, to take a BLP actor article example). In addition, there will simply be more 'text' in a C-class article – while a Start-class article is longer than a "Stub", they're usually not much longer; a C-class article, by contrast, is noticeably longer than any regular "Stub" article.
Sourcing[edit]
Extent of sourcing may be the even more important dividing line between a Start-class article and a C-class article. There are a number of articles that have achieved "C-class length", but which should not be promoted to C-class, because they are insufficiently sourced (e.g. perhaps having only half-a-dozen references to solid reliable sources). A C-class article will be well sourced. The table above suggests at least a dozen references, but that is probably the bare minimum of acceptable sourcing for C-class, and most C-class articles will likely have closer to two dozen references to reliable sources, and possibly more. By contrast, regardless of article length, a Start-class article will struggle to have references to a dozen reliable sources, and will often have half that many. In general, possibly the quickest way to promote an article from Start-class to C-class is simply to continually hunt for sourcing until roughly two dozen reliable sources have been found – with that level of sourcing, the article will very probably have enough information content on its own to qualify for C-class.