Wikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speech/Assessment
| Freedom of speech articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 FA
|
8 | 8 | 16 | ||||
| FL
|
3 | 3 | |||||
 GA
|
3 | 43 | 20 | 4 | 70 | ||
| B | 1 | 26 | 65 | 62 | 17 | 171 | |
| C | 2 | 25 | 125 | 155 | 48 | 355 | |
| Start | 3 | 19 | 180 | 197 | 97 | 496 | |
| Stub | 1 | 42 | 47 | 31 | 121 | ||
| List | 6 | 7 | 37 | 6 | 56 | ||
| Category | 243 | 243 | |||||
| Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Project | 8 | 8 | |||||
| Redirect | 3 | 5 | 27 | 35 | |||
| Template | 19 | 19 | |||||
| NA | 25 | 25 | |||||
| Other | 15 | 15 | |||||
| Assessed | 6 | 80 | 476 | 531 | 338 | 203 | 1,634 |
| Unassessed | 2 | 20 | 22 | ||||
| Total | 6 | 80 | 476 | 533 | 338 | 223 | 1,656 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 5,279 | Ω = 4.30 | |||||
Welcome to the assessment department of the Freedom of speech WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Freedom of speech related 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.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Freedom of speech articles by quality and Category:Freedom of speech articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Frequently asked questions
[edit]- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Freedom of speech WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- 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.
- 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!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
Instructions
[edit]Quality assessments
[edit]An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
| FA | (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class Freedom of speech articles category) | FA |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| FL | (for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class Freedom of speech articles category) | FL |
|
| A | (for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class Freedom of speech articles category) |  A |
|
| GA | (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class Freedom of speech articles category) | GA |
|
| B | (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class Freedom of speech articles category) | B | |
| C | (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class Freedom of speech articles category) | C | |
| Start | (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class Freedom of speech articles category) | Start | |
| Stub | (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class Freedom of speech articles category) | Stub | |
| List | (for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class Freedom of speech articles category) | List | |
| NA | (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class Freedom of speech pages category) | NA | |
| ??? | (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed Freedom of speech articles category) | ??? |
For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:
| Category | (for categories; adds them to the Category-Class Freedom of speech pages category) | Category | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Draft | (for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class Freedom of speech pages category) | Draft | |
| Portal | (for portal pages; adds them to the Portal-Class Freedom of speech pages category) | Portal | |
| Project | (for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class Freedom of speech pages category) | Project | |
| Template | (for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class Freedom of speech pages category) | Template |
The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:
| Redirect | (for redirect pages; adds them to the Redirect-Class Freedom of speech pages category) | Redirect |
|---|
After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.
Quality scale
[edit]| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA |
The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:
A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
|
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. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
|
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
| A |
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. 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. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). |
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) |
| GA |
The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria
A good article is:
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | 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. | Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019) |
| B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
|
Readers are not 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. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
| C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
|
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 solve cleanup problems. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
| Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
|
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. | Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
| List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | 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 literary movements |
Importance assessment
[edit]An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{Freedom of speech| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - The article is about one of the core topics of Freedom of speech. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Freedom of speech articles
- High - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Freedom of speech. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Freedom of speech articles
- Mid - The article is about a topic within the Freedom of speech field that may or may not be commonly known outside the Freedom of speech community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Freedom of speech articles
- Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the Freedom of speech field and is not generally common knowledge outside the Freedom of speech community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Freedom of speech articles
- Unknown - Any article which has not yet been assessed on the importance scale is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance Freedom of speech articles.
Importance scale
[edit]| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | The article is one of the core topics about Freedom of speech. | A reader who is not involved in the field of Freedom of speech will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. | Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. | Freedom of speech |
| High | The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding Freedom of speech. | A reader who is not involved in the field of Freedom of speech will have a reasonable level of familiarity with the subject matter, but may need clarifications for some of the more technical terminology. | Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, however with more specificity and technical terms than the Top-importance articles. | New York Times Co. v. Sullivan |
| Mid | The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of Freedom of speech. | Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. | Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand Freedom of speech, such as specific aspects of Freedom of speech. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in Freedom of speech will be rated in this level. | Freedom of speech by country |
| Low | The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Freedom of speech. | Few readers outside the Freedom of speech field or that are not adherents to it may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. | Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of Freedom of speech, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of Freedom of speech. | Index on Censorship |
Requesting an assessment
[edit]If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it in a new subsection at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Freedom of speech.
Assessment log
[edit]| Freedom of speech articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
May 30, 2025
[edit]Reassessed
[edit]- Independent media (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
[edit]- Editorial independence (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
May 29, 2025
[edit]Assessed
[edit]- Draft:Wikipedia:Academic freedom and Wikipedia (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Wikipedia:State media and Wikipedia (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
May 27, 2025
[edit]Renamed
[edit]- Reindorf Review renamed to University of Essex.
Reassessed
[edit]- Lèse-majesté (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
[edit]- 2024 Utrecht University pro-Palestinian campus occupations (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- 2025 Utrecht University pro-Palestinian campus occupations (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- 2025 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- 2025 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses in the Netherlands (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Blasphemy Day (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Cameron Samuels (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Deliberative opinion poll (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Eliminationism (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- L'Union (French newspaper) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- List of people imprisoned for editing Wikipedia (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as List-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Political egalitarianism (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Seven Don't Mentions (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Siarhei Besarab (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- ^ Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.