Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks		AcademyAssessmentA-Class
review		ContestAwardsMembers
Shortcuts

The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

Overview

Introduction

Shortcut

The assessment system used by the Military history WikiProject to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.

Prose article List article
Stub The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list, so this assessment level is shared between the two scales.
Start List A stub that undergoes some development will progress to the next stage of article evolution. An article at this stage provides some meaningful content, but is typically incomplete and lacks adequate references, structure, and supporting materials. At this stage, it becomes possible to distinguish between prose articles and lists; depending on its form, an article at this level will be assessed as a Start-Class prose article or a List-Class list.
C CL As the article continues to develop, it will reach the C-Class level. At this stage, the article is reasonably structured and contains substantial content and supporting materials, but may still be incomplete or poorly referenced, but not both. As articles progress to this stage, the assessment process begins to take on a more structured form, and specific criteria are introduced against which articles are rated.
B BL An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it might not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. Articles at this stage commonly undergo peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing a formal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors. For specific (b1) citation requirements for a B-class article for this project see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Citations and references.
GA After reaching the B-Class level, an article may be submitted for assessment as a good article. Good articles must meet a set of criteria similar to those required for the B-Class assessment level, and must additionally undergo the formal good article review process. This assessment level is available only for prose articles; no comparable level exists for lists.
A AL A good or B-Class article that has undergone additional improvement may be considered for the A-Class assessment level. An A-Class article presents a complete and thorough encyclopedic treatment of a subject, such as might be written by an expert in the field; the only deficiencies permissible at this level are minor issues of style or language. To receive an A-Class rating, a candidate article must undergo the formal military history A-Class review process. The A-Class rating is the highest assessment level that may be assigned by an individual WikiProject; higher assessment levels are granted only by Wikipedia-wide independent assessment processes.
FA FL The featured article and featured list ratings represent the pinnacle of article evolution and the best that Wikipedia has to offer; an article at this level is professional, outstanding, and represents a definitive source for encyclopedic information. Featured status is assigned only through a thorough independent review process; this process can be grueling for the unprepared, and editors are highly advised to submit articles for A-Class review prior to nominating them for featured status.

Criteria

Shortcut

The following tables summarize the criteria used to assess articles at each level of the quality assessment scale. In addition to the criteria, the tables list the assessment process used at each level and provide an example of an article previously assessed at that level.

Assessment criteria for prose articles
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
FA The article meets all the featured article criteria. Featured article candidacy USS Chesapeake (as of October 2021)
A The article meets all of the A-Class criteria. A-Class review Spendius (as of October 2021)
GA The article meets all of the good article criteria. Good article review Punic Wars (as of October 2021)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. Individual review American Civil War (as of January 2024)
C The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Individual review Yellow Turban Rebellion (as of October 2021)
Start The article meets the Start-Class criteria. Individual review Battle of Monnaie (as of October 2021)
Stub The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Individual review Geng Yan (as of October 2021)
Assessment criteria for lists
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
FL The list meets all the featured list criteria. Featured list candidacy List of protected cruisers of France (as of October 2021)
AL The list meets all of the A-Class criteria. A-Class review List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (as of October 2021)
BL The list meets all of the B-Class criteria. Individual review List of British colours lost in battle (as of October 2021)
CL The list meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Individual review List of participants in the Nine Years' War (as of October 2021)
List The list meets the List-Class criteria. Individual review Atlanta campaign Confederate order of battle, second phase (as of October 2021)
Stub The list meets none of the List-Class criteria. Individual review List of aircraft of Greece in World War II (as of Febuary 2025)

Processes

This section describes the different processes used to assess the quality of military history articles.

Individual review

Shortcut

The individual review process is used for all assessment activities up to and including the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.

Article authors are free to assess their own articles under this process. However, by convention, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at the assessment request page.

Peer review

Shortcut

The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.

By convention, military history articles are typically listed in the history section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.

Good article review

Shortcut

The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria.

Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.

A-Class article/list review

Shortcut

The military history A-Class review process is the most thorough and demanding assessment of article quality done by the Military history WikiProject. An article that undergoes this process must be reviewed by at least three independent examiners, each of whom must agree that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria.

Full instructions for requesting an A-Class review are provided on the A-Class review page.

Shortcut

The featured article candidacy and featured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets the featured article or list criteria.

Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.

Instructions

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Military history}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Military history|class=}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:

The class parameter should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following classes may be used for non-article pages; many are automatically generated by the template when it is placed on a page of the corresponding type:

FAQ

Shortcut
See also the general assessment FAQ and the project's B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ and A-Class review & criteria 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 Military history}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Military history}} 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 the Military history WikiProject 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. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to?
For the most part, yes—in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be made here), and A-Class promotion requires the consensus of multiple independent reviewers. However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.
6. 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.
7. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
8. 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.
9. Where can I get more comments about an article?
The peer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
10. 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.
11. 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!
12. 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.

Requests

Requests for A-Class review

Further information: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review

Bertrand_Clauzel • USS Missouri (1841) • 1931 Salvadoran coup d'état • HMS Lizard (1757) • Battle of Edington • 2001 Biggin Hill Airshow disasters • USCGC Dione • Conscription in Rhodesia • Battle of 42nd Street • Scharnhorst-class cruiser • Transocean Air Lines Flight 942 • Richard Thomas Glyn • USS Anzio (CVE-57) • First Battle of Springfield


Requests for assessment

Shortcut
Please note that this section is transcluded from a separate requests page, which you may wish to add to your watchlist.

Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class. If you have made significant improvements to an article against one or more of B-class criteria and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below, specifying which criteria you have worked on. If you feel unable to assess against one or more of the B-class criteria, please say so when posting. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. Please consider entering articles you have improved in the military history article writing contest.

Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#AutoCheck report for December and check a few of ≈ B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria. Please also delete any that you have checked. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment, whose articles often overlap with military history topics.

ADD NEW REQUESTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS SECTION AND BEFORE THE LINE FOR THE BACKLOG CHECK REQUEST
Please remember to sign your requests.

  • 100th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom) has a different problem. Saunders (2001), Zaloga (2014) and Beevor (2018) require bibliography entries.
    @Hawkeye7: I am pinging you to be sure you see or have seen the following reply and additional questions. It went further down the page rather than directly under the previous comments so I moved it up. Donner60 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Hawkeye, I've added those two citations to the Edward Neufville Crosse page. So obvious now you pointed them out. On 100th Anti-Aircraft Brigade (United Kingdom), sorry, all three of those are in the bibliography - do they need more detail? On page numbers, other than Routledge I've been citing kindle editions. My understanding was that with an ebook it is best to cite chapters, rather than pages, as they aren't necessarily consistent - should I be doing something different? BBWood1908 (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are page numbers, the page number and edition should be cited. Citing the edition along with its page numbers, whether ebook or print edition, avoids inconsistency with other editions where page numbers could differ. See Wikipedia:Citing sources#Identifying parts of a source. This subsection also has guidelines for citations from sources which have no page numbers at all, whether ebooks or prints. That seems to be what you are referring to. That use of broader identification (chapters, sections, entire books) does not include books with page numbers where an edition can be cited. Donner60 (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siege of Milan (538–539) – New article, it was assessed by the MHWP bot as B-class, but it needs to be reassessed by humans as the bot thought that it was a biography, and thus I removed the B-class in the talk page. Please assess for B-class. A.Cython(talk) 05:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd. You have already fixed this. Confirmed as B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 23:41, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the biography option (as this was obvious) also B-class from the overall rating so that a human can assess it. Is there a difference between the MHWP assessment vs the overall rating? A.Cython(talk) 23:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No difference. The overall rating is shown at the top. The individual project ratings are shown by clicking on the link for those projects. In this case, it appears that none of the other projects do specific ratings - or at least they have not done so for this article. So CEWBOT had already accepted the military history project B rating as the "majority rating", equivalent to the overall rating shown first. Only this project's rating has been done but it becomes a majority of one. You only changed the task force so that would not affect the original bot conclusion concerning the overall rating.
    When and how CEWBOT does ratings, and if it changes ratings after human assessors change project ratings. may be specified somewhere. I think it does not necessarily re-evaluate the overall rating based on changes to an individual rating by humans. I have changed the overall rating as well when I change a bot rating. I have not tried to track the rating changes. I have not tried to become familiar with the intricacies of CEWBOT's workings, just the results that I see from time to time. I suppose I should take the time to learn the fine details so I can explain this more authoritatively. Donner60 (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the clarification on the bots, still learning. I am not familiar with those, but still wanted someone (not a bot) to have a look. Thank you. A.Cython(talk) 04:08, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siege of Auximus (539) – Overhauled and planning for GAN on this one. Please assess for B-class. A.Cython(talk) 05:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It is B class in form but I think a few clarifications are needed, especially since you plan to bring it to GAN. In the aftermath section I think that "until the Goths" may be better stated as "before the Goths." Also, "may had eliminated the Goths" seems to need rephrasing. I need to go back through the rest of the article because I think that there are a few other instances where some additional explanation or clarification may be needed for GA. I am leaving the assessment as is until I get back to you with any further comments. Donner60 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for pointing this out. I made some changes in the "Aftermath" section to improve it. Let me know, which parts also need some attention and I will my best to improve them. Again thank you for your input. A.Cython(talk) 05:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found several phrases or sentences that need expansion or clarification. I will put these on your talk page rather than put another long discussion on this page. As I now see it, the article passes b1 for having enough citations and having them in the right places. However, my closer reading now leads me to conclude that not only will this article need some work to get to GA, where reviewers are pickier, but it actually needs some work to meet b2. I have left the assessment as C class, now passing b1 but not passing b2. I think we may as well leave this open rather than striking it and coming back later. (On the other hand, I will be offline for most if not all of the next seven or eight days so I may not get back to it quickly. Perhaps another reviewer will get to it or it can just wait for awhile.) Donner60 (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for doing this thorough read. I am looking forward to your comments and I will try to address them to the best of my ability. I agree that it was not at GA status but I had to start from somewhere i.e., getting to B-class at least, but I intent to get it to GA. We are not in a hurry so enjoy the break. A.Cython(talk) 01:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, the article has been updated, so a brave soul is needed to complete the assessment for B-class. Thank you in advance. A.Cython(talk) 00:26, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    B class. Good job on a very complicated series of events with multiple parties. In my opinion, it is in good shape to give GA a try. Of course, I cannot predict whether a GA assessor will approve it or ask for some other clarifications or changes. Donner60 (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. I know that GAN can be tougher, but the more feedback I get the better article will become. 😄 A.Cython(talk) 00:19, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siege of Verona (541) – Overhauled. Please assess for B-class. A.Cython(talk) 05:10, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    B class. I decided to look at the last two of the recently posted requests before continuing with the two planned for GAN. This is an example of the rating changes that I mentioned above. I changed the project rating to B class and the overall rating to B class for the other projects. I don't expect these other projects to look at this. Also, CEWBOT apparently did not visit this article to give it a majority rating after the milhist bot rated it C class while the Italian project had previously rated it as a stub. Either CEWBOT only pays attention to B class articles or perhaps it doesn't act in this type of situation. CEWBOT was revised in recent times but without checking I can't really say whether it was before or after the rating here or whether or not it would have visited this article since it was below B class for both ratings. None of this would affect my assessment of articles but since the topic has been raised, I need to get more familiar with the details so I can explain CEWBOT's workings more accurately and comprehensively. Donner60 (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Battle of Faventia Overhauled. Assess for B-class. Any comments are always welcomed. A.Cython(talk) 01:26, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    B class. I have a few books on this period. I recognize some of the authors of the references and may need to pick up one or two others. I have too many books to read but I justify adding new ones to the library because I might need them for research. That is sometimes even true. Donner60 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. I liked the books of Ian Hughes (2009) Belisarius: The Last Roman General and Ilkka Syvänne (2021) Military History of Late Rome 518–565. The latter has a clear focus on military matters, which is useful on writing about sieges and battles. J. B. Bury's books are good but he skips some of the details. A.Cython(talk) 00:03, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I looked at this out of curiosity. The article on Ferdinand Charles, comte d'Aspremont-Lynden is brief, tagged as lacking citations, and only one foreign language reference is given. Browning and Cust (which is accessible to all because of the age of Cust's book) say he died at the battle. They are cited sources but no source to the contrary is cited in the footnote or appears to be present elsewhere in the article. Browning and Cust are apparently wrong if the article on Aspremont is correct. However, I think that A.Cython is correct that for verification and completeness some source should be cited to show that they were wrong. It appears that the brief and sparse article about him and the foreign language source cited (the only one in the Aspremont article; perhaps others can be found) show him not dying for many years after and this battle can confirm the error if translation is available. FWIW. Donner60 (talk) 02:17, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying the issue in the main text (by removing the footnote) with an additional source resolves the problem, making it a B-class for me (of course anyone else can add comments/objections). Good work! I guess a coordinator should strike this? A.Cython(talk) 00:21, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vũng Rô Bay incident - I believe that this article should have had a B class assessment some time ago. Please check this. Cuprum17 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    B class. I switched note 1 to before citation 5 at the end of a paragraph. Note 1 is an explanatory footnote, not a citation (although it properly includes one for the information in it). The bot and perhaps human assessors, might not view the paragraph as ending with a citation due to this. I am sure that a paragraph ending only in an explanatory footnote, even if it contains citations - which might or might not cover the preceding text, of course - is not counted as a citation. Recent edits also help this pass the B class criteria. The bot might not have reassessed this in any event since it is an existing assessed article so it was good to bring this up. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 01:41, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Take one.

Please also check the military history assessment backlog for articles needing assessment.

Assessment backlogs

Shortcuts

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

Statistics

  • Quality operations: A bot-generated daily log which lists articles Reassessed, Assessed and Removed.
  • Popular pages: List of top articles with the most frequent views, updated monthly.

Task forces (general topics)

Task forces (national and regional)

Task forces (periods and conflicts)

Special projects

allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MHPR