| Main page | Discussion | News & open tasks | Academy | Assessment | A-Class review | Contest | Awards | Members |
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
[edit]Introduction
[edit]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. | ||||
|
| |||||
 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. | ||||
Processes
[edit]This section describes the different processes used to assess the quality of military history articles.
Individual review
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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
[edit]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.
Featured article/list candidacy
[edit]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
[edit]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:
- FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class military history articles)
- FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class military history articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class military history articles)
- AL (adds articles to Category:AL-Class military history articles)
- GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class military history articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class military history articles)
- BL (adds articles to Category:BL-Class military history articles)
- C (adds articles to Category:C-Class military history articles)
- CL (adds articles to Category:CL-Class military history articles)
- List (adds articles to Category:List-Class military history articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class military history articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class military history articles)
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:
- CAT (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class military history articles)
- DAB (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class military history articles)
- DR (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class military history articles)
- IMG (for files; adds pages to Category:File-Class military history articles)
- NA (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class military history articles)
- POR (for portals; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class military history articles)
- RDR (for redirects; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class military history articles)
- SI (for set index pages; adds pages to Category:SIA-Class military history articles)
- TMP (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class military history articles)
- USR (for user pages; adds pages to Category:User-Class military history articles)
FAQ
[edit]- 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
[edit]Requests for A-Class review
[edit]Maximiliano Hernández Martínez • Tailhook scandal • HMS Hyperion (1807) • Operation Matterhorn • First Jewish–Roman War • Manhattan Project feed materials program • SMS Fürst Bismarck
Requests for assessment
[edit]- 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 June 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.
Sidney Godley- Housekeeping request. Please re-assess against B Class criteria. There is conflicting information on the talk page that needs human intervention. It is either B class or C class, it cannot be both simultaneously. I have not worked on this article, and am indifferent to its rating, but it does need to be defined. Thanks for making wikipedia a better place. Keith H99 (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2025 (UTC)- @Keith H99: I have added citation needed tags and reassessed this article as C class. That removes the inconsistency in this article. Perhaps this can be done more often, but I doubt anyone has the time, or interest, to seek out such inconsistencies in older articles. They will probably brought up only as noticed.
- The military history project has been permitted to opt out of the overall assessment process. This can lead to some articles that are assessed differently by the military history project than by other projects. In theory, all projects should rate an article according to the same scale and at the same level. This may well always or almost always happen for new articles. More often, later changes in articles might result in the inconsistencies in assessments, perhaps only when noticed by an assessor for one of the projects due to changes in assessment. Changes in the article which might lead to this could include the addition of new material for which more citations are needed.
- FA and GA are assessed on a Wikipedia-wide basis and should always be consistent. If someone thinks FA or GA assessments are no longer appropriate due to subsequent edits causing deficiencies, they can submit a request, or even nominate, a FA or GA article for reassessment. An exception: this project may decide to rate a downgraded FA article as A-class while it is usually, if not always, sent to GA for other projects.
- Coordinators and experienced users for this project assess every B class article within the scope of the project for which there is a request or review and sometimes change the bot B class assessments. Those two types of reviews should cover all of the B class articles, at least when they are new or significantly changed. At the B class level, military history assessors usually assess an article for all projects, unless active participation by other projects is seen, which rarely seems to happen. It may well be consistent if it did. Many other projects have few, if any assessors for their project even at the initial stages of articles. Many also have sizable backlogs of requests well after initial assessments are made by this project, at least. That would leaves this project's assessment as the only effective one even if not declared as such in the edit summary. A military history project would post the assessment in the banner shell as well as in the project rating line.
- For more info in general, and no doubt clearer statements of guidelines and most practices and procedures, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment, Wikipedia:Assessment, Wikipedia:Good article reassessment and Wikipedia:Featured article review, if you have not already done so.
- I suppose I could write a more comprehensive or cogent essay on this but I think it could take more time than it is worth. In fact, I hope that these thoughts have not been more disjointed or confusing than they have been worth as well. I'll leave this reply here for some days in case anyone wants to add, change or correct anything that I have written. More input also might be obtained by posting the general question about dealing with inconsistent article ratings on this project's talk page. Perhaps the question or subject for further comment also can be described better than I just hastily put it.
- Thanks for bringing up the inconsistency in the Sidney Godley article and noting the questions about the general topic. My guess is most, if not all, inconsistencies that come up after initial reviews (and after initial posting of the article if it were to happen) could be cleared up if attention is brought to them. That was the situation here since the article was started and assessed long ago. Donner60 (talk) 05:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the assistance rendered. Please do not think for one moment that I am criticising you. Whilst the "bots" do their thing, they only follow the "happy path" based on a facile interpretation of the data. For anything messy, this is beyond their "intelligence", and someone has to go into the guts of the talk page, and clean it up, which is what you have done in a very timely manner. Once again, many thanks for your firefighting! Keith H99 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- You are correct about the bots. They are usually on the mark, but not quite always. That is why the bot assessments are listed for review at the end of every month. Thanks Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- A bot will be processing the articles with conflicting quality ratings. We have not opted out of the PIQA, and the conflicts will all be resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. Glad the bot will be doing the work to prevent these inconsistencies. Donner60 (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- A bot will be processing the articles with conflicting quality ratings. We have not opted out of the PIQA, and the conflicts will all be resolved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- You are correct about the bots. They are usually on the mark, but not quite always. That is why the bot assessments are listed for review at the end of every month. Thanks Donner60 (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the assistance rendered. Please do not think for one moment that I am criticising you. Whilst the "bots" do their thing, they only follow the "happy path" based on a facile interpretation of the data. For anything messy, this is beyond their "intelligence", and someone has to go into the guts of the talk page, and clean it up, which is what you have done in a very timely manner. Once again, many thanks for your firefighting! Keith H99 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Keith H99: I have added citation needed tags and reassessed this article as C class. That removes the inconsistency in this article. Perhaps this can be done more often, but I doubt anyone has the time, or interest, to seek out such inconsistencies in older articles. They will probably brought up only as noticed.
*United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps Please check if it meets B Class I have made significant improvements to it, it should be re-reviewed by someone who has not worked on the article.--Tokeamour (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- There are citations to Manuals that lack a page number. Citations to Title 36 of the United States Code are inconsistent and in one case, duplicative. There are also bare URL cites.
- "In present times the organization still relies heavily on the military support for both uniforms and equipment as well as securing its funding. The United States Navy with a major presence, deploying in strength in such areas as the Western Pacific, the Mediterranean, and the Indian Ocean. Due to there presence in several regions USNSCC is in a direct benefit of this as it was chartered by the Navy to increase its outreach in not only the United States, also internationally even allowing benefits for those who do." An example of several passages that don't meet B4. Still start, even in its improved state. Lineagegeek (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Striking through this as assessment has been made and editor has been online since assessment made. Should be resubmitted if further improved as noted in comment. Donner60 (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- Polish–Swedish War (1626–1629) Rewritten and updated, B Class? Robinvp11 (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
- Please add citations to the 5 lettered footnotes. Some or all of these are perhaps covered by other citations, but there is no way to verify those facts without accompanying citations. I suspect footnotes a and b are covered by citation 1 but I cannot definitely make that conclusion without access to the book cited in citation 1 or citation of the book with the footnote. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Wolf-Dietrich Huy— a Luftwaffe fighter pilot, please assess MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)- Footnotes 1, 2 and 4 should have citations, although I suspect I discern the source of at least one of them. An additional sentence of two in the lead would be preferable. Otherwise, you have improved the article to B class. Donner60 (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- I added citations MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
- B class. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
- I added citations MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Arthur J. Ruhlig- mad scientist. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)- I added the project banner and the biography and physics project banners with low importance and one or two parameters omitted. You may wish to revise the banners if appropriate. I added a sentence to the lead and assessed the article as B class. Donner60 (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2025 (UTC)
Richard Lee (RAF officer):new article for a British flying ace of WWII, please assess. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)- I agree with the bot B class assessment. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 00:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Please also check the military history assessment backlog for articles needing assessment.
Assessment backlogs
[edit]Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:
- The current status of Category:Unassessed military history articles = 7 articles unassessed. After articles have been assessed, they are automatically removed from this category.
- The current status of Category:Military history articles with no associated task force = 14 articles without task forces. After task forces have been assigned, articles are automatically removed from the category.
- The current status of Category:Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists = 2 articles with incomplete checklists. After the checklists have been completed, articles are automatically removed from the category.
- The current status of Category:Military history articles with missing B-Class checklists = 0 articles with no assessment against the B-class checklist. After the checklists have been started, articles are automatically removed from the category.
Statistics
[edit]| Articles | Lists | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| FA |
1,536 | FL |
151 |
| A |
678 | AL |
37 |
| GA |
5,676 | ||
| B | 21,922 | BL | 369 |
| C | 65,896 | CL | 1,017 |
| Start | 108,215 | List | 4,195 |
| Stub | 27,050 | ||
| Total | 230,973 | Total | 5,769 |
| Other pages | |||
| Category | 0 | ||
| Disambig | 0 | ||
| Draft | 0 | ||
| File | 0 | ||
| Portal | 0 | ||
| Project | 0 | ||
| Redirect | 0 | ||
| SIA | 5,885 | ||
| Template | 0 | ||
| User | 0 | ||
| Total | 5,885 | ||
| Unassessed | 7 | ||
| Statistics | |||
| ω | 1,070,942 | Ω | 4.524 |
- 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)
[edit]- Military biography task force: statistics • category
- Fortifications task force: statistics • category
- Intelligence task force: statistics • category
- Military aviation task force: statistics • category
- Military culture, traditions, and heraldry task force: statistics • category
- Military historiography task force: statistics • category
- Military land vehicles task force: statistics • category
- Military logistics and medicine task force: statistics • category
- Military memorials and cemeteries task force: statistics • category
- Military science, technology, and theory task force: statistics • category
- Maritime warfare task force: statistics • category
- National militaries task force: statistics • category
- War films task force: statistics • category
- Weaponry task force: statistics • category
Task forces (national and regional)
[edit]- African military history task force: statistics • category
- Asian military history task force: statistics • category
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force: statistics • category
- Balkan military history task force: statistics • category
- Baltic states military history task force: statistics • category
- British military history task force: statistics • category
- Canadian military history task force: statistics • category
- Chinese military history task force: statistics • category
- Dutch military history task force: statistics • category
- European military history task force: statistics • category
- French military history task force: statistics • category
- German military history task force: statistics • category
- Indian military history task force: statistics • category
- Italian military history task force: statistics • category
- Japanese military history task force: statistics • category
- Korean military history task force: statistics • category
- Middle Eastern military history task force: statistics • category
- Nordic military history task force: statistics • category
- North American military history task force: statistics • category
- Ottoman military history task force: statistics • category
- Polish military history task force: statistics • category
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force: statistics • category
- South American military history task force: statistics • category
- South Asian military history task force: statistics • category
- Southeast Asian military history task force: statistics • category
- Spanish military history task force: statistics • category
- United States military history task force: statistics • category
- Roman and Byzantine military history task force: statistics • category
Task forces (periods and conflicts)
[edit]- American Civil War task force: statistics • category
- American Revolutionary War task force: statistics • category
- Classical warfare task force: statistics • category
- Crusades task force: statistics • category
- Cold War task force: statistics • category
- Post-Cold War task force: statistics • category
- Early Modern warfare task force: statistics • category
- Early Muslim military history task force: statistics • category
- Medieval warfare task force: statistics • category
- Napoleonic era task force: statistics • category
- Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force: statistics • category
- World War I task force: statistics • category
- World War II task force: statistics • category
Special projects
[edit]
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||