Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Assessment

Article assessment is the process by which weather articles are sorted by quality and importance into the different quality categories and importance categories. This page provides information on the assessment scale as well as the current practice of assessing articles.

Index · Statistics · Log

Weather articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	4	14	89	75			182
FL	1	4	31	50			86
FM					59		59
A		2	1				3
GA	23	89	456	730	1	2	1,301
B	28	70	182	206	1	14	501
C	32	210	562	941	1	105	1,851
Start	9	148	769	1,861		236	3,023
Stub			86	771		146	1,003
List	7	31	136	309	607	470	1,560
Category					2,616		2,616
Disambig					127		127
File					579		579
Portal					614		614
Project					154		154
Redirect		5	60	194	574		833
Template					1,219		1,219
NA					1		1
Other		1		4	39		44
Assessed	104	574	2,372	5,141	6,592	973	15,756
Unassessed				5		8	13
Total	104	574	2,372	5,146	6,592	981	15,769
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 32,645			Ω = 4.15

Instructions

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Weather}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA	(for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class Weather articles category)	FA
FL	(for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class Weather articles category)	FL
A	(for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class Weather articles category)	A
GA	(for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class Weather articles category)	GA
B	(for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class Weather articles category)	B
C	(for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class Weather articles category)	C
Start	(for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class Weather articles category)	Start
Stub	(for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class Weather articles category)	Stub
List	(for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class Weather articles category)	List
NA	(for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class Weather pages category)	NA
???	(articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed Weather articles category)	???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

FM	(for featured media only; adds them to the FM-Class Weather pages category)	FM
Category	(for categories; adds them to the Category-Class Weather pages category)	Category
Draft	(for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class Weather pages category)	Draft
File	(for files and timed text; adds them to the File-Class Weather pages category)	File
Portal	(for portal pages; adds them to the Portal-Class Weather pages category)	Portal
Project	(for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class Weather pages category)	Project
Template	(for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class Weather pages category)	Template

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

Disambig	(for disambiguation pages; adds them to the Disambig-Class Weather pages category)		Disambig
Redirect	(for redirect pages; adds them to the Redirect-Class Weather pages category)		Redirect

Quality scale

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 formating 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;^[1] 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.	Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019)
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.	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 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

These criteria apply to general-content articles. Weather articles have additional criteria/guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for an article of each class; see the talk page for discussion of these.

Each weather article has its assessment included inside the {{WikiProject Weather}} template, such as {{WikiProject Weather|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Weather articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

B-Class criteria

In addition to the above, B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet the following six criteria:

B	The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as `{{cite web}}` is not required. 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 it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and 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. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.

Importance assessments

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Weather}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Weather|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):


Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Weather articles)		Top
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Weather articles)		High
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Weather articles)		Mid
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Weather articles)		Low
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Weather articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Weather articles)		???

Importance scale

WikiProject article importance scheme
v
t
e
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

Assessment log

June 24, 2025

Renamed

1892 Southern Minnesota tornado renamed to Southern Minnesota tornadoes of June 15, 1892.

Reassessed

Convection (heat transfer) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

2025 European heatwaves (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
Southern Minnesota tornadoes of June 15, 1892 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

June 23, 2025

Reassessed

Freddy McKinney (talk) reassessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) (rev · t)

Assessed

Draft:AMMA Program (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

June 22, 2025

Reassessed

2024 Europe spring heatwave (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
Climate of Australia (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
Isidoro Orlanski (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

June 21, 2025

Reassessed

2025 Jakarta floods (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
Floods in Colombia (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
Hurricane Erick (2025) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

List of Gujarat tropical cyclones (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

June 20, 2025

Renamed

2016 Funing tornado renamed to 2016 Jiangsu tornado.
Draft:Hurricane Erick (2025) renamed to Hurricane Erick (2025).

Reassessed

1968 Hansell–Charles City tornado (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

2016 Jiangsu tornado (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

2024 Ankola (Karnataka) landslide (talk) removed.
Draft:List of Oklahoma tornadoes (talk) removed.

June 19, 2025

Renamed

1991 Andover tornado outbreak renamed to 1991 Great Plains tornado outbreak.
2016 Jiangsu tornado renamed to 2016 Funing tornado.
Draft:Tropical Storm Erick (2025) renamed to Draft:Hurricane Erick (2025).

Assessed

1991 Great Plains tornado outbreak (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
Northern Tornadoes Project (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

June 18, 2025

Renamed

Boreal (age) renamed to Boreal period.

Assessed

Boreal period (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

^ Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.

[1] Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.

[1]