Wikipedia talk:Content assessment

Assessment requests discussion

Hello! There is currently some discussion being held regarding WP:WPWP/ASSESS (the current place for general assessment requests, mistakenly beholden upon WikiProject Wikipedia), including about moving most of it to a subpage of this page at Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests. If anyone’s interested, located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia/Assessment#Why are the assesments here?. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see this has now happened, so watchers of this page might also want to watch Wikipedia:Content assessment/Requests and answer any requests there — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:56, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this is a maintenance categorie with the r shell I think. Next move is to you but I essentially came from a bare maintenance categorie to reconcile talk and project space if I remember correctly. Anyways this is sandbox. I think we really need to zero in on what we ar trying to do here. Wikimedia is not Wikipedia but it is of the same spirit. If any kind of money is talked about then maybe we can just subcategories wikimedia under donations. What say you? ~2026-33080-2 (talk) 01:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

F grade

There really should be an F grade for Wikipedia articles. There are so many that are neither Stubs nor Starts, but simply, bad articles from top to bottom. They don't merit deletion, but they require so much work as to start over. The best way to convey that, at the moment, is with a Stub grade and a note on the Talk page. Why not create a failing grade?Trumpetrep (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For non-stub articles I suggest demoting it to Start-class — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should read this: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussion_Projet:%C3%89valuation/Avancement#Entre_E_et_BD Erikgobrrr (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Gaza-Israel war

The information described under this topic is full of inaccuracies and appears to be biased. For example, it cites casualty statistics provided by the Hamas - hardly an objective source. Hamas terrorists are described as "militants," thus ignoring the true nature of atrocities they committed on October 7, 2023. And the list goes on. The over-emphasis on the misery of the Gazan civilians, described extensively, obscures the role of Hamas in causing it, for example, by not allowing any civilian to shelter in their extensive tunnel system, so as to increase civilian casualties for propaganda purposes (increase world support for their cause. These are just a few points of many, showing clear bias and inaccuracies in the wikipedia items on this topic. ~2025-43522-71 (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-43522-71: These comments are out of scope for this page; it is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Content assessment. Please make your observations at the talk page for the article concerned. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Demote grade A

I strongly suggest that we demote the grade A status to lower than GA; currently, it's harder to get to grade A, yet more significant to have an article be at GA. As such, there are far more articles at both FA and GA than at grade A. Instead, we should make grade A easier to obtain than GA, but harder than grade B. It would make far more sense this way. Do you all agree? Wikieditor662 (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given A class is primarily used by specific WikiProjects rather than very widely, it makes sense that there's less articles at A. I recall a longer discussion about A class in 2023 (Wikipedia_talk:Content_assessment/Archive_8#Remove_A-class?), but I'm sure there's various other prior discussions in the archives too. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the gap between B and GA is already quite small, so fitting in another grade in between may be difficult. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MSGJ. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? You need to have an entire process to get an article from B to GA, and as someone who tried this myself, it's incredibly difficult to do! Wikieditor662 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A-class isn't between B and GA, nor is it between GA and FA. Like GA, it's between B and FA; it's sort-of level with GA but with different criteria and a different promotion process. Promotion to GA-class requires an independent reviewer, who need not be familiar with the topic area. Promotion to A-class requires a WikiProject to carry out the formal review (and so will almost certainly be carried out by people familiar with the area, if not the specific topic); few WikiProjects will do this, but a notable exception is WP:MILHIST. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And which one gives harder requirements for its review? Wikieditor662 (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a matter of opinion. Compare WP:ACLASS with WP:WIAGA. --Redrose64 🦌 (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It also depends on the reviewer. Some GA reviewers are 'easy' or 'difficult'; others are arbitrary (e.g., demanding changes that the Wikipedia:Good article criteria don't include, or even explicitly reject, like citation formatting). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if we make the criteria for A class lower than GA, then it would be considered inferior, with everything else being basically the same, no? Wikieditor662 (talk) 07:09, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or if we alphabetized the table, maybe people would quit thinking that the order of the entries indicated a strict linear "superior" or "inferior" relationship.
AIUI your arguments so far are:
  1. It's harder to get A-class.
  2. GA is more "significant" (to you).
  3. Getting GA requires "an entire process", which you found difficult.
IMO the obvious responses are:
  1. This is a reason to keep A-class "higher".
  2. Not everyone values GA as much as you do. Some people think getting anything on the Main Page is the height of wiki-significance, and DYK and ITN are even easier ways to do that.
  3. A-class also requires "an entire process". Some editors over the years have found A-class to be more difficult than FA, and at least for MILHIST, most find it more difficult than GA (e.g., must have three reviewers agree to promote it, instead of GA's one).
WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
2. GA is more "significant" (to you). it does have its own popup on the top right of the article page unlike A-class, that has to indicate something doesn't it? And I'm referring specifically to classes.
1. and 3. I'm proposing to have the bar to get an A-class article be lower as well, sorry I didn't clarify that well enough.
Wikieditor662 (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Think back to a few years ago, before you even realized that you could create an account here. Did you know what that little green icon meant? Did you care about it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying it shouldn't be there? It has to have some sort of purpose, even if some casual readers don't pay attention to it. Wikieditor662 (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If "some casual readers" means "more than 99% of readers", sure. They don't show on mobile, BTW, and that's two-thirds of page views.
AFAICT the "purpose" is to make the FAC and GA noms feel like they've achieved something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
the "purpose" is to make the FAC and GA noms feel like they've achieved something. exactly, and you don't have that with A-class, which I think says something. Now if we both lower the criteria to get A-class, and the importance of it, wouldn't that be more consistent with this? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No. A-class is recognition by a group of editors according to their self-chosen norms. Top icons are a type of site-wide recognition according to site-wide norms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that indicate lower requirements for A-class than GA? Wikieditor662 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't. It doesn't say anything at all about the requirements for either of them.
Compare:
  • Process A requires a specific group of people to endorse it. This particular group of people sets Requirements 1, 2, 3, and 4.
  • Process B requires one person to endorse it. The community has set Requirements 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Does anything in there tell you whether "Requirements 1, 2, 3, and 4" is higher or lower than "Requirements 5, 6, 7, and 8"?
In practice, MILHIST's A-class is more stringent than GA, but other WikiProjects have other standards. It is normal for an article to be rated as "A-class" by one WikiProject and "B-class" by the others. I suppose the quality ratings were unified before you created your account, so you probably didn't know that WikiProjects can have separate ratings. For example, Cadet Nurse Corps is rated A-class by WP:MILHIST and GA-class by WP:NURSE. The article E. T. Pollock is rated A-class MILHIST and B-class by WP:WPBIO. This is how the system is supposed to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're right that I didn't know different projects gave different ratings... wouldn't it be better for it to at least be some sort of indication that an article is A-class, perhaps by having it be in the top right of an article, kind of like how GA and FA do it? Wikieditor662 (talk) 04:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Most readers can't see it (because they're on mobile). Most readers who do see it don't care or know what it means. For the tiny percentage that would see and understand it, why would they care? The message would effectively be "Hi, a self-appointed group of people decided this meets their self-chosen standard". And another group could equally disagree with them – do they get to register their disagreement in the same place? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well I know it affects me as an example, as I'm less likely to edit an article that has this. Wikieditor662 (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We want editors to WP:Be bold. Maybe we should hide those ratings from you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Surely being more careful with interfering with an article that has already been peer reviewed as well written and good is not the same as not being bold? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we can trust you to figure out whether your edit will improve the article or make it worse, regardless of whether it's been labeled with a top icon? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's always black and white, it's not always, "this edit is absolutely amazing" or "this edit will get me banned", but there's a gray area, with edits which might be seen as good by some but not others? Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the assumption is that you will make edits that you believe are an improvement (even a small one) for that article. Others will do the same. You may disagree that some of their edits are actually improvements, and they may disagree about some of yours, but that's fine.
Actually, that's great. Making an edit to a page causes that page to appear in Special:RecentChanges and to pop up in other editors' watchlists. That can cause them to make useful edits, too. That means that your edit, even if it gets reverted, can even be the cause of a chain of improvements to an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well in other times I myself am not certain whether an edit is worth it. As for recent changes, I don't think that's very likely to cause that, as most articles only have small tweaks from time to time, and occasionally (every few months or years) has an editor that wants to farther expand. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the time spent on a GA article can be spent on an article that's in more need of help. Wikieditor662 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes editors should build WP:Consensus#Through discussion first, if they're uncertain. I really don't want you to treat highly rated articles like they're precious. In fact, @Z1720 seems to spend most of their time getting GAs de-listed, and AIUI most of them fail at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. I therefore think you can safely assume that a large fraction of GAs need improving, and that treating the article like it might be WP:FINISHED already is a poor bet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it's not black and white where I either see the article in need of massive improvement or not needing any at all... it's somewhere in the middle, and I'm more cautious with GA articles than none GA ones, and more cautious with FA articles than GA. Wikieditor662 (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment