Welcome to the assessment department of the Canada WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Canada 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.
Any member of the Canada 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.
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.
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
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.
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
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.
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.
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; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.
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.
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 usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
A very basic description of the topic. Can be well-written, but may also have significant content issues.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; however, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.
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.
Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles.
Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.
Note that the four city projects have their own importance scales. To rate the importance of an article for a city project, use the parameters |toronto-importance=???, |montreal-importance=???, |vancouver-importance=???, or |ottawa-importance=???.
The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in Canada.
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 Canada. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text.
The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Canada, but may cover topics directly related to Canada.
Few readers outside of Canada or that are not within the local area of the article's topic 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 Canada, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed.
I've rewritten the article on Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, and am hoping to bring it through to Featured Article status. Please assess for A-class. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just created the article Simonie Michael. I think it falls under certain sub-projects of this WikiProject, but none of them seem to have active Request an Assessment areas :( - Astrophobe (talk) 04:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This was promoted to GA status in May 2021. PKT(alk) 13:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the GO Transit line aricles (LW,MI,KI,BR,RH,ST,LE) should be reassessed. They've been much improved since they were all rated as start-class. Username6892 14:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've bumped most up to C-class (I think that'd be mostly reasonable), except for the Richmond Hill line since I'm getting the sense there's still some work to be done on that one. Hiàn (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! I've moved it to C class today. PKT(alk) 13:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded Riding Mountain National Park and reformatted it to look more like the Banff National Park article, as suggested at last review. I also rewrote the activities section to read more like an encyclopedia entry and added some relevant historical events that were missing from the history section.Trek104 (talk) 19:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've further tweaked Garibaldi Provincial Park and made significant expansions to Bowron Lake Provincial Park, and would like to get one or both of these reviewed for GA status. However, since they're the only articles I've done any major work on, I'd like to get some fellow Canadapedians to give me their opinions on the articles first. If there are major issues that need to be addressed, I'd like to get them fixed before adding to the GA-review queue. Thanks for any input. Luidias (talk) 18:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amanda Stepto - Before this year, this article of a Degrassi actress was [empty] with no sources, no biography, no filmography. I've written a biography from scratch with plenty of contemporary articles from ProQuest, podcasts she guested on and even dug up several sources saying that she was a spokesperson for Planned Parenthood in 1992-1993. ToQ100gou (talk) 11:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Parliament Building (Quebec) - article translated/expanded from French sixfold (the version is, in my opinion, more complete than the French one). Requesting reassessment - I think it is now a solid B grade, though I would be grateful for feedback. (PS. I'd be grateful for suggestions about how to improve it to a good article - write on my talk page). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Melanie Leishman - Could this page please be reassessed? I've expanded the previously stub rated article to include full filmography (Film & TV) & summaries of significant career events with plenty of References & hyperlinks to existing Wiki pages. Thanks for your time! :) LooksGreatInATurtleNeck (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Premier of Ontario - Did a major rework with large content additions, may now be a C or B class article, didn't want to self-assess. Some areas of issue may be creation of summary statistics in the article based on Wikipedia biographies but not an independent source. Looking forward to comments, and I'll watch the talk page to see if there's anything in need of improvement. --Kwkintegrator (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]