Anarticle rating and assessment scheme has been implemented for Assyria-related articles, which is monitored and maintained byWikiProject Assyria. In this scheme, all Assyrian-related articles ('article' here also includes lists) may be assigned a particular rating which indicates an assessment of theirclass (overall quality).

The primary purpose of this rating and assessment scheme is to provide editors with a sub-categorised survey of the current status of Assyrian related articles, which can then be used to prioritise the overall workload and highlight articles needing improvements at various stages.

For example, lower-quality articles in need of most work can be readily identified for attention and collaboration.

There will be a number of secondary benefits from the scheme, such as being able to track which kinds and topics of articles are 'neglected'.

This assessment and rating scheme follows the precepts adopted by theVersion 1.0 Editorial Team, seeVersion 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment andVersion 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects for details.

Theclass ratings are recorded by setting appropriate values to the parameters of the main WPAP Project banner,{{WPAP}} which are placed on the corresponding talk pages of articles about Assyrians.

See theQuality scale for guideline criteria for rating an article by class/quality.

The assessments ofclass are assigned manually by WikiProject Assyria project members (or other interested parties)– see theRating instructions for details. Assigning a rating will automatically place the article in an appropriate rating category.

Once assigned, behind the scenes a bot (Mathbot (talk ·contribs)) runs periodically (scheduled daily, about 0300hrs UTC) which compiles a variety of statistics and log data, which can then later be analysed.

It is expected that this rating and assessment scheme will require periodic and iterative maintenance, as new articles are created or identified, and existing articles are progressively improved (or, hopefully much rarer, demoted), requiring the status to be reassessed (indicated by changing the parameter value).

Of course, anyone is free to edit any of the articles they choose, however it is hoped that this will provide some basis for a more methodical approach to the longer-term overall improvement of content and coverage in Assyrian related pages.

An article's assessment is recorded via the use of certain parameters of the{{WPAP}} project banner, which is affixed to the talk pages of in-scope articles.

The main parameter used for this exercise isclass (indicates an assessment of the article's current overall quality).At least for the present, we making only minimal use of theimportance parameter: seeImportance scale.

Usage summary (note the parameters are in lowercase). :

{{WPAP|class=???|importance=???}}

These parameters flag the article according to the values chosen (which then appear on the project banner), and also assign the article to a corresponding category. The possible values of these parameters and guidance criteria on which value to choose are detailed below: seeQuality scale for theclass parameter.

The general workflow is as follows:

1. Locate an in-scope Assyrian related article (or list), add the{{WPAP}} project banner to itstalk page if not already there. (Note this also applies to new articles you may create, ie you can add the banner and the rating as you go).
2. If currently unassessed (or when adding the project banner anew), determine what its class assessment rating should be, using your judgement and the criteria given here. Try to be as frank as possible in the assessment, the aim here is to appropriately identify articles needing later improvement and there's nothing to be gained by "over-ranking" them.
3. Add the selected parameter values to the project banner template call, per the specified syntax. Once previewed/saved, you should see the values updated in the banner and the appropriate categories assigned.
4. If in doubt as to the appropriate class level, you can either leave the value unassigned for now (ie omit the parameters), and/or consult with another project member to decide.
5. If the article already has a rating, but you disagree or the article has subsequently been edited by you or someone else so that its overall quality has changed (hopefully for the better!), then you can update the parameter yourself to reflect its new status.
6. On an ongoing basis, you can patrol the variousx-class categories for improvement opportunities, and also theunassessed cats for new assessments.

Each article may also be assigned to a particularclass, intended as a point-in-time assessment of its overall "quality" - relative to the criteria given in the quality scale which is detailed below.

This quality scale follows the definitions employed at theVersion 1.0 Editorial Team'sassessment system.

The following values may be used for theclass parameter (they should be entered exactly as given):

Each article may also be assigned to a particularimportance. At least for the present, we making only minimal use of this.

• Top: major, broad articles likeAssyrian people orAssyrian empire
• High:All actual ethnic groups and similar entities and articles on the history of any ethnic group within a particular country or region
• Mid: Other articles that are likely to be of general interest (for example, an article about the theatrical traditions of a particular ethnic group)
• Low: Articles that are not about individual ethnic groups and are not likely to be of general interest (for example, a building that houses an ethnic organization)

I'm not as sure what would go in "Mid" vs. "Low"; it is a matter of what would have broad interest.

These are the detailed criteria per class/quality division, following the assessment scheme used by the Wikipedia V1.0 Editorial team.

WikiProject content quality grading scheme

• v
• t
• e

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attainedfeatured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured article criteria: Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting thepolicies 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 areverifiable against high-qualityreliable sources and are supported by inline citationswhere appropriate; neutral: it presents viewsfairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoingedit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant withWikipedia's copyright policy and free ofplagiarism ortoo-close paraphrasing. It follows thestyle guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a conciselead 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 hierarchicalsection headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—seeciting sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It hasimages and other media, where appropriate, with succinctcaptions andacceptable copyright status. Images follow theimage use policy.Non-free images or media must satisfy thecriteria for inclusion of non-free content andbe labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and usessummary 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.	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
FL	The article has attainedfeatured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaginglead 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 aresourced where they appear, and they provideinline citations if they contain any of thefour kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements forstand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate thecontent-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 andtable sort facilities. Style. It complies with theManual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a)Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting,tables, andcolour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b)Media files. It hasimages and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia'susage policies, with succinctcaptions.Non-free images and other media satisfy thecriteria for the inclusion of non-free content andare labeled accordingly. (c)Accessibility. Ituses proper formating to beaccessible to all readers.Bulleted and unbulleted lists andtables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilizealternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoingedit 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 theA-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described inWikipedia: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 afeatured 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 meetsall of thegood article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers fromWP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria Agood article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation. Verifiable withno original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline; reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould 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 containsno original research; and it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses themain aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary 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 ongoingedit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio: media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content; and media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable 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 existingfeatured 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 meetsall of theB-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reachgood article standards. More detailed criteria The article issuitably referenced, withinline citations. It hasreliable sources, and any important or controversial material which islikely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of<ref> tags andcitation 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 anA-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 alead 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 beof the standard of featured articles. TheManual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, aninfobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in anappropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background andtechnical 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 theManual of Style and relatedstyle 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 substantialcleanup. 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 solvecleanup 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 toreliable 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 astand-alone list orset 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

• WikiProject Assyria