The Piracy WikiProject assessment process helps showcase the Project's best pages and give pointers toward areas in need of further work. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors. The assessment is done using parameters in the{{WikiProject Piracy}} project banner; this places articles in the appropriate sub-categories ofCategory:Piracy articles by quality, which serve as the foundation forthis automatically generated worklist. Two levels, GA and FA, are not assessments that can be assigned simply by a project member. These refer to external judgments of article quality made atWP:GA andWP:FA.
There is aseparate scale for rating articles forimportance orpriority, which is unrelated to thequality scale outlined above. Unlike the quality scale, the priority scale varies based on the project scope. See also a proposed template at{{Importance Scheme}}.
| Piracy articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 FA | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 6 | ||
| FL | 1 | 1 | |||||
 GA | 2 | 5 | 9 | 16 | |||
| B | 6 | 15 | 15 | 31 | 13 | 80 | |
| C | 1 | 9 | 28 | 79 | 59 | 176 | |
| Start | 1 | 9 | 46 | 159 | 268 | 483 | |
| Stub | 11 | 48 | 84 | 143 | |||
| List | 2 | 6 | 37 | 3 | 48 | ||
| Category | 233 | 233 | |||||
| Disambig | 5 | 5 | |||||
| File | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Portal | 3 | 3 | |||||
| Project | 9 | 9 | |||||
| Template | 9 | 9 | |||||
| NA | 1 | 1 | 7 | 50 | 59 | ||
| Other | 1 | 5 | 6 | ||||
| Assessed | 9 | 40 | 113 | 374 | 317 | 427 | 1,280 |
| Total | 9 | 40 | 113 | 374 | 317 | 427 | 1,280 |
To request an assessment on an article, add the article below this line.
| 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.
| 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:
| 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:
| 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
| 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:
| 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 |
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 Micronations.
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.
| Importance | Criteria | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Kindergarten |
| High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Factory Acts |
| Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | 0.999... |
| Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. | G cell |