Wikipedia:WikiProject Engineering/Assessment

Quality scale

This table is transcluded here, and is identical to the one at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.

More information Class, Criteria ...

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.	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
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 and includes at minimum eight items; 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 formatting 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.	Everybody Wants to Rule the World (as of October 2025)
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.	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 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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.	Yap Day (as of March 2026)
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 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

Close

Importance scale

Renamed

• Draft:Satish Kandlikar renamed to Satish Kandlikar.

Reassessed

• Arachno-Bot (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Gabriel Kiss (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Draft:Brazil Singh (talk) removed.
• Draft:Dhamari Trice-Hanson (talk) removed.
• Draft:EliJavanmardi (talk) removed.

Reassessed

• Eduardo Kausel (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Gasoline particulate filter (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Geneviève Jourdain (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• George Rankin Irwin (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Josephson junction (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Metallic microlattice (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Tom Hoover (engineer) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Uniclass (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• AI-assisted software development (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Application lifecycle management (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Bessemer Society (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Spec-driven development (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Systems development life cycle (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as High-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• College of Engineering Trikaripur (talk) removed.

Assessed

• Draft:Andrzej Krzywda (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Gasoline particulate filter (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Jeff Geerling (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Operational assurance (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Category:Engineering colleges in Meerut (talk) removed.

Renamed

• Colombo International Nautical and Engineering College renamed to CINEC Campus.
• Dan Sadot renamed to Dan Sadot.

Reassessed

• Cornélie Lebon-de Brambilla (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Spillage (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• CINEC Campus (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:George E. Nasr (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Hannaford Baffle (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Partha Sarathi Roy (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

Renamed

• Draft:Professor Chad L. Pope renamed to Draft:Chad L. Pope.

Reassessed

• David Powell (Aerospace engineer) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• John P. Dear (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Tommy Gate (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Tyler Folsom (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Draft:Bond Technologies (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Chad L. Pope (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Cornélie Lebon-de Brambilla (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Geneviève Jourdain (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Imensazan Consultant Engineers Institute (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Draft:Jian Lu (talk) removed.
• Draft:Phidi Soepangkat (talk) removed.

Renamed

• Doc Edgerton renamed to Harold Edgerton.

Reassessed

• Cesare Chiodi (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Pietro Studiati Berni (architect) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Umberto Tombari (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Draft:American Society for Health Care Engineering (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Ceramic spray nozzle (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• David Powell (Aerospace engineer) (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Habib Benali (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Harold Edgerton (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as High-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Prashant Kumar (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Supply chain diversification (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Draft:Archie Johnston (talk) removed.
• Draft:Navaprabu Kandasamy (talk) removed.
• Tianshan Shengli Tunnel (talk) removed.

Renamed

• Carbon Mapper renamed to Carbon Mapper.
• Mechanical Engineering Industry Association renamed to Machinery and Equipment Manufacturers Association.
• School of Engineering, UNAM renamed to Faculty of Engineering, UNAM.
• Draft:Traffic signal operation in New South Wales renamed to Traffic signal operation in New South Wales.

Reassessed

• Andrea Stella (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Craft production (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Ferdinand Porsche (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Low-Class to High-Class. (rev · t)
• Isabel Ebel (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Jack Brouwer (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Requirements analysis (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Requirements engineering (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Sea Baby (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• The Churchill Machine Tool Company (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Timothy Koogle (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Draft:Altimetrik (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• André Bertin (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Armory (company) (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Cesare Chiodi (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Colette Kreder (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:EWF Group (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Faculty of Engineering, UNAM (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Jake Carmona (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:João Manuel Costa Antunes (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Machinery and Equipment Manufacturers Association (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Nelson Rodrigues Filho (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Optimal firm size (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Pietro Studiati Berni (architect) (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Scott James Reeves (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:TimeVault (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Umberto Tombari (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• University of Mississippi School of Engineering (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Chika Judith Abolle-Okoyeagu (talk) removed.
• Draft:Garey Fox (talk) removed.
• Draft:George E. Nasr (talk) removed.
• Draft:Karen Horting (talk) removed.
• Draft:Liquid Instruments (talk) removed.
• Shri Chhatrapati Shivajiraje College of Engineering (talk) removed.
• Draft:Toynbee Associates (talk) removed.