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.

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.

Criteria[edit]

The following tables summarize the criteria used to assess articles at each level of the quality assessment scale. In addition to the criteria, the tables list the assessment process used at each level and provide an example of an article previously assessed at that level.

Assessment criteria for prose articles

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
FA	The article meets all the featured article criteria. 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.	Featured article candidacy	USS Chesapeake (as of October 2021)
A	The article meets all of the A-Class criteria. 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. See also the A-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	A-Class review	Spendius (as of October 2021)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria. 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.	Good article review	Punic Wars (as of October 2021)
B	The article meets all 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. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	American Civil War (as of January 2024)
C	The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 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. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	Yellow Turban Rebellion (as of October 2021)
Start	The article meets the Start-Class criteria. 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: A 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	Individual review	Battle of Monnaie (as of October 2021)
Stub	The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Individual review	Geng Yan (as of October 2021)

Assessment criteria for lists

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
FL	The list meets all the featured list criteria. Detailed criteria Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (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. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (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. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Featured list candidacy	List of protected cruisers of France (as of October 2021)
AL	The list meets all of the A-Class criteria. 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. See also the A-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	A-Class review	List of Partisan detachments in Bosnia and Herzegovina (as of October 2021)
BL	The list meets all 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. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	List of British colours lost in battle (as of October 2021)
CL	The list meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 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. See also the B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ.	Individual review	List of participants in the Nine Years' War (as of October 2021)
List	The list meets the List-Class criteria. 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	Individual review	Atlanta campaign Confederate order of battle, second phase (as of October 2021)
Stub	The list meets none of the List-Class criteria.	Individual review	List of supercavitating torpedoes (as of October 2021)

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 ((WPMILHIST)) project banner on its talk page:

((WPMILHIST|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 ((WPMILHIST)) to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a ((WPMILHIST)) 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 for A-Class review[edit]

Fort McKavett State Historic Site • Battle of Plum Point Bend • Jozo Tomasevich • Henry Biard • Johann Mickl • Battle of Saipan • Operation Barrel Roll • Fort Corcoran • T-26 • Sihanouk Trail • Battle of La Haye-du-Puits • Battle of Tinian • Henry Macandrew

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 March 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.

• Portuguese–Algerian War (1790–1813) New war please assess. ⵟⵓⵔⴽⵉⵙⵀⴽⴰⴱⵢⵍ (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Wilfred Sizer; new article for a British flying ace, please assess. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  B class. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Frederick Kimble Another new article on a pilot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  B class. Another good article. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Jan Klán - new article on a fighter ace of the Czechoslovak Gendarmerie (note there is a WP:SELFPUB in the Notes; I've solicited input here as to whether it should stay or go ... open to any feedback) Chetsford (talk) 16:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 = 11 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 = 303 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 = 27 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 = 10 articles with no assessment against the B-class checklist. After the checklists have been started, articles are automatically removed from the category.

Articles		Lists
FA	1,438	FL	151
A	671	AL	36
GA	5,392
B	20,327	BL	331
C	63,328	CL	993
Start	106,064	List	4,019
Stub	26,971
Total	224,191	Total	5,530
Other pages
Category		40,940
Disambig		2,342
Draft		379
File		4,548
Portal		13
Project		201
Redirect		22,633
SIA		5,711
Template		8,104
User		113
Total		84,984
Unassessed		11
Statistics
ω	1,042,990	Ω	4.54

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]

Operation Majestic Titan assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan pages by quality Quality Total FA 201 FL 14 A 34 GA 303 B 70 C 106 Start 154 Stub 10 Assessed 892 Total 892 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) pages by quality Quality Total FA 181 FL 14 A 32 GA 282 B 6 C 9 Start 2 Assessed 526 Total 526 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 660 Ω = 1.29 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) pages by quality Quality Total A 1 GA 5 B 8 C 20 Start 29 Stub 2 Assessed 65 Total 65 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 272 Ω = 4.18 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) pages by quality Quality Total FA 16 GA 6 B 22 C 23 Start 16 Assessed 83 Total 83 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 250 Ω = 3.01 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) pages by quality Quality Total FA 4 GA 4 B 14 C 11 Start 12 Stub 2 Assessed 47 Total 47 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 166 Ω = 3.53 log • category

Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) assessment statistics Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) pages by quality Quality Total A 1 GA 4 B 13 C 35 Start 85 Stub 5 Assessed 143 Total 143 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 643 Ω = 4.50 log • category