Quality scale

The quality "class" an article receives should follow Wikipedia's regular guidelines for quality found below.

Articles which have not been formerly evaluated, or which have failed a good article review, should not be assigned a quality rating higher than B class. Above that an article needs to go through a formal review process.

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. 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.	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.	Stanford Memorial Church As of 10-11-2011
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: 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.	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: 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.	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.	2011 Orange Bowl As of 10-12-2011
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 The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as `((cite web))` is optional. 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	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.	Herbert Hoover As of 11-14-2011
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: 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	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.	The Dish (landmark) As of 10-05-2011
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.	Stanford Field As of 02-19-2011
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 scale

Status	Meaning of Status
Top	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid	This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low	This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

Notes on importance to WikiProject Stanford

This is only for assessment of articles that fall within the Stanford WikiProject.

For determining the Importance rating (Low, Mid, High, Top) please keep the following in mind:

Keep a historical perspective.
Every item in the Project is already important and notable, otherwise it would not be on Wikipedia. Low does not mean the subject is not important.
The rating is in terms of the subject's importance to the Stanford project; Mark Hatfield, who served as Governor and U.S. Senator from Oregon is of High importance to that project, but since his affiliation with Stanford (a master's degree) is not significant, he is low for the Stanford project. Conversely, Donald Kennedy, a president of Stanford, is of High importance to our project but Low importance to the Biography project.

Approximate breakdown of the percentage of articles in each category as a goal:
- Low=55%
- Mid=30%
- High=15%
- Top=1%

People

Top - Probably no one but if one had to be chosen, it should start with a founder such as Jane Stanford (i.e., many volumes could be and might have been written about their influence upon Stanford)
High - People who have had a profound influence upon Stanford. This includes the founders, major University presidents, and a few others (i.e., whole books could be written about their influence upon Stanford)
Mid - People who have had a major influence upon Stanford as a whole or a profound influence upon a smaller portion of the university. Major football coaches, major Deans of Schools, donors/trustees prominent for being Stanford donors/trustees, major professors (i.e., several chapters)
Low - People of less but not insignificant influence upon the university or who have been heavily influenced by the university (i.e., at least a few paragraphs could be written about their connection to the university within their Wikipedia article without seeming to be filler). I've added David Harris (protester) at the low level since he was a student leader during some of the protests in the late 60s.
Should not be in the project - their only connection is attending/visiting/being employed with no significant influence upon the university. They can and should be in the list of Stanford Alumni (or other appropriate list).

Entities

Buildings should go into the Low category unless they have some national or historical significance (Stanford Mausoleum) in which case they are Mid; if they are associated strongly with, and define Stanford (Hoover Tower or MemChu) then High.
Institutions or departments are generally Low; each of the schools (Stanford University School of Medicine) are Mid.
Physical geography articles (Lake Lagunita) should go into the Low category.

Events

Event articles should go into the Low category. This includes athletic teams and seasons, except for those that brough prominence to Stanford, such as an undefeated football season (Mid) or national championship basketball team (High).

Other items

For everything else, the default should be Low. Then if there is some sort of significant reason to move it up to Mid do so if the item had a lasting effect of more than a year or so. If the effects are larger or longer term then High. If it helps to define what Stanford is to people, then Top.

Statistics

Stanford University articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		1		1			2
GA	1	1	5	3		1	11
B	3	10	16	35		5	69
C	1	14	27	93		17	152
Start	2	23	56	253		64	398
Stub		9	31	167		20	227
List		3	5	6		4	18
NA		2	1	5	51		59
Assessed	7	63	141	563	51	111	936
Unassessed				1		3	4
Total	7	63	141	564	51	114	940
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 4,189			Ω = 4.88