King Warz Charts

King Warz Charts:Content assessment

The following system is used to assess the quality of a King Warz Chart article. The system is based on a letter scheme that reflects principally how factually complete the article is.

Grades

King Warz Charts content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
  FA The article has attained featured article status by King Warz.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria
 Outstanding, complete, free of grammar errors and follows every relevant rules in the Manual of Style. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible (especially for artist pages).
  A The article is well organized and essentially complete, after an analysis by King Warz. 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 as the article is detailed. All the relevant details that are required (per the Manual of Style) is present. Some tweak the article may be needed, and style problems may need solving.
  GA The article meets all of the good article criteria.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1}}:
    1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1a}}; and
    2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|1b}}.
  2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2}}:
    1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2a}};
    2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2b}};
    3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2c}}; and
    4. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|2d}}.
  3. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3}}:
    1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3a}}; and
    2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|3b}}.
  4. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|4}}.
  5. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|5}}.
  6. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6}}:
    1. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6a}}; and
    2. {{Wikipedia:Good article criteria/GAC|6b}}.
 Extremely useful to readers as the article is detailed and elaborate. And it also follows every guidelines listed in the Manual of Style. Some tweak the article may be needed. Make sure to keep articles up to date especially for Week and artist pages
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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 should be or can be better A few aspects of content and/or style need to be addressed. General compliance with the Manual of Style.
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material.
More detailed criteria
Most articles, upon creation are C-class articles meaning that it contains most of the relevant information but it needs better content before it can be classified as an A, B, or GA article
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and ensuring compliance with the MoS.
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Add the relevant details that are needed
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may like a couple sentences. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the page 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.
Retrieved from "https://kingwarzcharts.com/index.php?title=King_Warz_Charts:Content_assessment&oldid=1618"