Oceans articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1		1	2			4
FL			1				1
GA	1	2	3	11			17
B	6	15	17	66		55	159
C	5	24	65	226		116	436
Start	1	21	66	459	5	251	803
Stub		2	26	411	1	290	730
List		3	2	31		15	51
Category					843		843
Disambig					8		8
File					32		32
Portal					1		1
Project					6		6
Template					74		74
NA	1	1	2	18	68		90
Other			1		24		25
Assessed	15	68	184	1,224	1,062	727	3,280
Unassessed				1		3	4
Total	15	68	184	1,225	1,062	730	3,284
WikiWork factors (?)		ω =10,637			Ω = 4.96

Welcome to theassessment department of the WikiProject Oceans! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Oceans articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with theWP: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.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the{{WikiProject Oceans}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories ofCategory:Oceans articles by quality,Category:Oceans articles by importance,Category:Oceans articles needing attention,Category:Oceans past collaborations, andCategory:Oceans past selected articles. The quality and importance ratings serve as the foundation for anautomatically generated worklist. There is alsoCategory:Non-article Oceans pages) for things like redirect pages, templates, categories, images, etc.

How can I get my article rated?

As a member of the WikiProject Oceans, you can do it yourself. If you're unsure, list it in therequesting an assessment section below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of WikiProject Oceans is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.

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.

Where can I get more comments about my article?

ContactWikipedia:WikiProject Oceans who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for aPeer review.

What if I don't agree with a rating?

Relist it as a request or contactWikipedia:WikiProject Oceans who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.

Aren't the ratings subjective?

Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on theimportance scale), 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, or to contact theWikipedia:WikiProject Oceans directly.

An article's assessment is generated from theclass andimportance parameters in the{{WikiProject Oceans}} project banner on its talk page. You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below.

This is the rating syntax (ratings and dates are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{WikiProject Oceans}}

• displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.

{{WikiProject Oceans|class=FA|importance=Top}}

• all assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in. Leaving the other parameters off does not hurt anything.

{{WikiProject Oceans|class=Start|importance=Mid|attention=yes}}

• if an article needs immediate attention, add the attention tag and please leave talk notes as to why. "yes" is the only valid parameter here. If it doesn't need attention, leave the parameter off.

{{WikiProject Oceans|class=B|importance=High|attention=yes|past-selected=[[July]] [[2006]]|past-collaboration=[[April]] [[2006]]}}

The following values may be used for theclass parameter:

• FA (adds articles toCategory:FA-Class Oceans articles)
• FL (adds articles toCategory:FL-Class Oceans articles)
• A (adds articles toCategory:A-Class Oceans articles)
• GA (adds articles toCategory:GA-Class Oceans articles)
• B (adds articles toCategory:B-Class Oceans articles)
• Start (adds articles toCategory:Start-Class Oceans articles)
• Stub (adds articles toCategory:Stub-Class Oceans articles)
• List = (adds articles toCategory:List-Class Oceans articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages toCategory:Non-article Oceans pages). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable.

Articles for which a valid class and/or importance is not provided are listed inCategory:Unassessed Oceans articles. The class should be assigned according to thequality scale below.

The following values may be used for theimportance parameter:

• Top (adds articles toCategory:Top-importance Oceans articles)
• High (adds articles toCategory:High-importance Oceans articles)
• Mid (adds articles toCategory:Mid-importance Oceans articles)
• Low (adds articles toCategory:Low-importance Oceans articles)
• Articles not assigned to any of the above will be automatically added to theCategory:Unknown-importance Oceans articles.

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set toNA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to theimportance scale below.

Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.

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.	Everybody Wants to Rule the World (as of October 2025)
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.	Gravel (as of January 2006)
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

The criteria used for rating article importance arenot meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of theaverage reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greaterpopular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of hagiography. Importance does not equate to quality; afeatured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the prespective of someone from that region.

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

• North Aral Sea Please recheck the quality and importance for C and Low; Stub and ??? doesn't seem right anymore.
• South Aral Sea Please recheck the quality and importance for C and Low; Stub and ??? doesn't seem right anymore.

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

• Western Mediterranean (talk) reassessed.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)

• Draft:AltaSea at the Port of Los Angeles (talk) removed.

• Long Beach Marine Institute (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asUnassessed-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Tom Garrison (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asB-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)

• United Nations Ocean Conference renamed toUnited Nations Ocean Conference.

• Draft:Jenny Krusoe (talk) removed.

• Andreyev Acoustics Institute (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed fromStub-Class toNA-Class.(rev ·t)

• Hung Hua Construction (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asStart-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asUnknown-Class.(rev ·t)

• WikiProject Oceans