Wikipedia talk:Content assessment

FA and GA idea:

There is a growth in sources over time for most topics. Rarely, if ever, do sources shrink. What if we add in a "decay" feature, where after a certain amount of time, an article at GA or FA will go down to B and A respectively, unless and until reassessed? Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian12512(alt): Have you informed Wikipedia talk:Featured article criteria and Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations? They really should have a say in this. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a proposal yet. If I think that it's actually a good idea after people give feedback, I would give a through explanation here and post a link to it on the talk pages of everywhere related. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

@Wikipedian12512. If I started a discussion, don't ping me. I'll have it on my talk page. If you want, you can ping my usual account. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 01:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Just putting this here for notifications. Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 21:13, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

+1. The GAR and FAR already do this. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Similar proposals have been made before, but in summary this is not going to come close to getting any sort of consensus. There is significant topical variation in what gets new sources, and how relevant those new sources are. There are also differences in editor attention over time that affect updates and maintenance. There are complaints that GAR is full as it is. However, if you do want to review older articles, you can participate at WP:URFA/2020. CMD (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

We could place this only on science or math articles, or other places where sources and information will likely increase dramatically. Wikipedian12512(alt) (talk) 13:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see why you think topics like Euclid–Euler theorem that have barely changed for hundreds of years are especially likely to see a sudden influx of sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:58, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Idea:

A class above FA. Perhaps "Perfect article," "Near-perfect Article," or another term?

Requirements:

1. 1. It has gone through a featured article review process, which it has passed.
   2. It has undergone significant improvement since then, not only because of developments since the assessment or routine maintenance.
2. 1. All images which could possibly be taken without being non-free use are done so, and everything is appropriately tagged with its image lisence.
   2. All images are at a sufficiently high quality such that a viewer would find no easy fault with them (or, as an alternate, at least 25% of the pictures included are featured pictures).
   3. Appropriate media is given to provide insight into all major areas of the subject.
   4. All media is informative, and contains information relevant to the article.
3. 1. The lead is concise, clear and understandable, and leaves no major omissions of the article.
   2. The lead contains the most useful picture (or other media) for learning of the subject.
4. 1. The article leaves no omissions in its coverage of the subject, unless doing so would cause problems in the viewing of the article.
   2. The article is fully compliant with the entirety of the manual of style.
   3. The article needs no copyediting.
   4. There are no places in which the article becomes unclear.
   5. There are no inaccuracies.
   6. The article is completely nuetral.
5. 1. Every claim is supported by a reliable source.
   2. The sources all support the material in question, as given by a spot source check of at least 75% of the sources.
   3. No tags are present that are still needed, or need to be added.
6. 1. The article is given the appropriate protection level to avoid vandalism.
   2. No edit warring has taken place recently, unless such warring ended up establishing a consensus that improved the article.
7. 1. All subheadings are appropriately organized and named.
   2. All information is broken up into subsections of the appropriate tier, and all information within those stays on topic.

(I'm getting ahead of myself here.)

Signed, _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:12, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

What is your proposed review process? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:31, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Like FA (comments and support), and there must be at least 5 supports, and the number of supports must be at least 5 times greater than the number of opposes (subject to change). _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:35, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

I think a lot of these are already in Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, e.g. all those in 4 — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Mostly, but these are a tad stricter. _{In solidarity}Wikipedian12512 (Talking is fine | contribs) 22:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Missing: four-chambered gate

See four-chambered gate discussed at:

Ben-Ami, D. (2026). "The Last Gate Has Closed: Revisiting the Late Iron Age Fortress Gate at ʿEn Ḥaẓeva". Tel Aviv, 53(1), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/03344355.2026.2588909 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03344355.2026.2588909 Arminden (talk) 08:02, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Please see WP:Requested articles. If you have any expertise, it might be better if you start the article — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:35, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

importance=

In the banner of some article's Talk pages, I see WikiProjects tagged under "It is of interest to the following WikiProjects". However, the tag doesn't include importance=. Does the importance parameter need to be added, in order to be included on that WikiProject's unassessed articles list? rootsmusic (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

@Rootsmusic: You don't give any examples. Some WikiProject banners, but not all, respect a |importance= parameter; if you say which ones, I can check.

But consider for example Talk:Lucy Adlington. This has three WikiProject banners: Biography, United Kingdom and Women writers. The first two don't show an importance, but the third shows Low‑importance. In the categories at the bottom, we find eleven categories, two of which relate to importance: Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles and Low-importance Women writers articles. By opening up the page for editing, you can see that of the three WikiProject banners:

• {{WikiProject Biography}} has no |importance= parameter; and even if one were added, this would be ignored because the WikiProject doesn't respect the parameter
• {{WikiProject United Kingdom}} also has no |importance= parameter, and its absence puts the page into Category:Unknown-importance United Kingdom articles. The same would happen if the parameter were present but blank.
• {{WikiProject Women writers}} has |importance=Low, which puts the page into Category:Low-importance Women writers articles

So, which pages are you thinking of? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks @Redrose64! I mistakenly assumed that all Wikiprojects use a importance= parameter for content assessment. rootsmusic (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

In particular, WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Military history have rejected them because they wanted to avoid any fights over which articles were more "important" or should be higher "priority" than others. Just imagine how heated a fight could get if someone said that the most famous army general from "my" country is more important than the most famous army general in "your" country. I'm glad that they made this decision. (It also saves them a lot of time.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

I've inserted the importance= parameter on a Talk page, because the template has that parameter. If I didn't correct the template's tagging, would that WikiProject still be included in its unassessed articles list? (@WhatamIdoing) rootsmusic (talk) 15:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Rootsmusic: in that edit, adding |class= is pointless, since the class is taken from the |class=Start of the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Adding |importance= will not make a difference, since it has no value. You also altered somebody else's post from This is ambiguous to Thi115575s is ambiguous, which is not permitted by WP:TPO. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

(Sorry @Redrose64, I guess that my edit accidentally inserted "115575". I'll correct that part.) I thought that adding importance= will alert WikiProject Country Music to assess that article? rootsmusic (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

Previous to your edit, it was in Category:Unknown-importance Country music articles because there was no |importance= parameter. After your edit, it's in Category:Unknown-importance Country music articles because the |importance= parameter is blank. There's no practical difference. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 29 § Wikipedia:RATEARTICLES until a consensus is reached. Justjourney (talk | contribs) 04:51, 29 June 2026 (UTC)