Discussion

Alerts

Assessment

Showcase

Resources

Article assessment involves determining the quality and importance of articles of interest to WikiProject Conservatism. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.The article review processes provide constructive criticism which is used by editors to improve articles. We're happy to assess your new article as well as developed articles.

To request an assessment of your new or developed article click here:

If you would like an outside opinion on a new quality and/or importance rating for your article, please feel free click the button. This will result in an assessment rating of Stub, Start, C or B.

Request assessment

The assessment system used by the WikiProject Conservatism 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.

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. Detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: A particularly useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
C						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. The article meets at least one of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
B						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. Detailed criteria B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. B3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. B4. It is free from major grammatical errors. B5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
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. Detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
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 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. Detailed criteria A1. The article/list is consistently referenced with an appropriate citation style, and all claims are verifiable against reputable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations as appropriate. A2. The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. A3. The article/list has an appropriate structure of hierarchical headings, including a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections, and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents. A4. The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear, is in line with style guidelines, and does not require substantial copy-editing to be fully MoS-compliant. A5. The article/list contains appropriately licensed supporting visual materials, such as images or diagrams with succinct captions, and other media, where relevant.
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. Detailed 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. It is: 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; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: 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. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.

Importance scale

• Assess the article using the quality and importance schemes above.
• Once assessed add ((WikiProject Conservatism|class=|importance=)) to the Talk page with the correct parameters.
• Edit the Talk page to add a comment about why you rated the article the way you did. Please sign and date your comment with ~~~~.
• The Rater tool can assist with article assessment. Another tool is the Kingbotk plugin for AutoWikiBrowser.

See below for assessing specific quality types

Stub

Stubs are assessed using Individual Review, and the author is free to assess the article. If the article is assessed better than a stub but it has a stub template, remove the stub template(s) from the article. Currently there are no conservatism stub templates, identification of stubs is accomplished by setting class=stub in the banner. This categorizes article talk pages into Category:Stub-Class Conservatism articles. Politics stub templates can also be useful. The stub for a politician is ((Poli-bio-stub)) and a political organization is ((poli-org-stub)). See WP:WikiProject Conservatism/Templates for more stubs.

C-Class

C-Class articles are assessed using Individual Review, and the author is free to assess the article.

B-Class

B-Class articles are assessed using Individual Review, rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made here.

GA-Class

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

The WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review process is the most thorough and demanding assessment of article quality done by the WikiProject Conservatism. An article that undergoes this process must be reviewed by at least two 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.

FA-Class

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.

Q: An article was erroneously tagged by a member of this project.

A: Do not remove the banner. Ask the member why they tagged it, or post a message at the project talk page (below). Note: the banner does not imply that the subject has a conservative or right-wing ideology, has no relevance to neutral POV, nor that WikiProject Conservatism owns the article.^[1]

Q: I'm a member and the banner I added to an article talk page was removed.

A: From PROGGUIDE: You may not force them to remove the banner. No editor may prohibit a group of editors from showing their interest in an article. This warning ((WPRYT Uw-banner)) can be used to notify an editor of the guideline.

Q: Can non-members tag articles?

A: Yes, but if a member removes the banner do not replace it.^[1]

Q: The quality or importance rating of an article is incorrect.

A: Anyone can change the rating. Make sure to consult the assessment scale here. Ratings are subjective, importance ratings in particular can be controversial. Disputes will be resolved by project members at the project talk page (below).^[2][3]

Q: What is the scope of this WikiProject?

A: As stated on the main page of this project, we are dedicated to improving articles related to conservatism, not limited to any particular form or national variety of conservatism.

Conservatism articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	2	11	15	19			47
FL				1			1
FM			6		13		19
GA	3	14	28	64		1	110
B	18	66	186	413		98	781
C	35	91	265	1,021	1	214	1,627
Start	13	82	331	1,941		593	2,960
Stub		8	55	717		300	1,080
List	2	6	26	87		3	124
Category				2	922		924
Disambig				1	21		22
File				1	202		203
Portal				1	136		137
Project					44		44
Redirect	2	4	10	57	289		362
Template	1		11		165		177
Other					29		29
Assessed	76	282	933	4,325	1,822	1,209	8,647
Unassessed				1		24	25
Total	76	282	933	4,326	1,822	1,233	8,672
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 30,351			Ω = 4.60

Index · Statistics · Log

Former Featued articles and lists are good candidates for A-Class review.

This is a list of recognized content, updated weekly by JL-Bot (talk · contribs) (typically on Saturdays). There is no need to edit the list yourself. If an article is missing from the list, make sure it is tagged (e.g. ((WikiProject Conservatism))) or categorized correctly and wait for the next update. See WP:RECOG for configuration options.

Former featured articles

Paul Bremer • Bricker Amendment • Tom Brinkman • Constitution of the United States • Gerald Ford • Frankfurt School • Bruce Johnson (Ohio politician) • Liberal Movement (Australia) • Libertarianism • John Major • Bob McEwen • Political correctness • Read my lips: no new taxes • Nancy Reagan • Theodore Roosevelt • Nicolas Sarkozy • Jean Schmidt • Margaret Thatcher • Daniel Webster • Zionism

Former featured lists

List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party

Former featured pictures

• Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl

Former good articles

Edmund Burke • George H. W. Bush • David Cameron • Capitalism • Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh • Mike Cierpiot • Cold War • College Republicans • Death panel • Falun Gong • Alan Keyes • Liaquat Ali Khan • Rush Limbaugh • McCarthyism • Michigan Republican Party • Opus Dei • Patrick Henry College • Ron Paul • Rape and pregnancy statement controversies in the 2012 United States elections • Condoleezza Rice • Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump • United Malays National Organisation • The Wall Street Journal • Wildrose Party