U.S. Congress articles by quality and importance
|
Quality
|
Importance
|
Top
|
High
|
Mid
|
Low
|
NA
|
???
|
Total
|
FA
|
1
|
9
|
29
|
29
|
|
5
|
73
|
FL
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
2
|
4
|
GA
|
2
|
24
|
34
|
52
|
|
43
|
155
|
B
|
8
|
91
|
183
|
482
|
|
168
|
932
|
C
|
7
|
70
|
241
|
1,008
|
|
552
|
1,878
|
Start
|
3
|
42
|
339
|
3,057
|
1
|
5,891
|
9,333
|
Stub
|
3
|
7
|
79
|
1,329
|
|
3,298
|
4,716
|
List
|
7
|
82
|
105
|
608
|
2
|
329
|
1,133
|
Category
|
2
|
4
|
20
|
63
|
1,505
|
|
1,594
|
Disambig
|
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
|
2
|
File
|
|
1
|
|
|
78
|
|
79
|
Project
|
|
3
|
2
|
5
|
3
|
|
13
|
Template
|
|
9
|
36
|
12
|
2,304
|
|
2,361
|
NA
|
1
|
4
|
8
|
85
|
313
|
|
411
|
Other
|
|
|
|
|
7
|
|
7
|
Assessed
|
34
|
346
|
1,077
|
6,732
|
4,214
|
10,288
|
22,691
|
Unassessed
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
1
|
Total
|
34
|
346
|
1,077
|
6,732
|
4,214
|
10,289
|
22,692
|
WikiWork factors (?)
|
ω = 85,579
|
Ω = 5.01
|
How you can help
|
1. Assess articles that are currently unassessed. You'll find them at
|
2. Place {{WikiProject U.S. Congress}} on the talk page of articles that don't already have it. And when you do, please complete the assessment.
|
Welcome to the assessment department of the U.S. Congress WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's United States Congress-related articles, using {{WikiProject U.S. Congress}} . While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject U.S. Congress}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of:
which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
The final status box is generated automatically by a bot or manually by this web form.
- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Congress WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
- Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
- Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject U.S. Congress}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject U.S. Congress|class=???}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed U.S. Congress articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below:
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. |
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.
- 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.
- 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. |
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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. |
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 |
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject U.S. Congress}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress|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):
Label
|
Criteria
|
Examples
|
Top
|
Core topics about Congress. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main United States Congress article, vital for the understanding of Congress or extremely notable to people outside of the United States. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members. Biographies should be limited to the top one or two members of Congress in a particular field or persons of the greatest historical importance
|
Ted Stevens
|
High
|
Topics that are very notable within Congress, and well-known outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia.
|
Mitch McConnell
|
Mid
|
Topics that are reasonably notable on a national level within Congress without necessarily being famous or very notable internationally
|
Ron Wyden
|
Low
|
Topics of mostly low-level interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial topics or topics that have only a limited connection to Congress
|
John Thune
|
When applying the {{WikiProject U.S. Congress}} template, editors ought to add a subject. This subject will put that article in a corresponding category as follows:
{{WikiProject U.S. Congress | subject=}}
If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, list it below.
- Overman Committee User:Bsimmons666 - I created this article off of the requested articles page and have added to it significantly. Plenty of sources from old newspaper archives I've dug through, and some book resources from google books. Like User:Therefore above me, I believe it is ready to be graded.
- United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 User:CylonCAG - We've significantly changed the article since we were last assessed. I think it should be given another look.
- Twenty-first Amendment to the United States Constitution --ClemsonChuck (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC) - This page has not yet received any assessments. I've made significant improvements to the section concerning Court Rulings with the correct legal citations. It details the different of opinions on how significantly this Amendment should effect the distribution of power between Congress and the states when it comes to making laws concerning alcohol. Luckily, unlike other parts of the Constitution, this Amendment has produced a history of Supreme Court decisions which is long enough to provide meaningful interpretation, but not so long that it becomes the subject of its own legal practice or law school curriculum.[reply]
- John Jenrette- upgraded to Start-class --TommyBoy (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen Lynch (politician)- Article was previously assessed as GA-class by another user. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter T. King, Stephen Fincher, and Quico Canseco articles have been assessed. --TommyBoy (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Champ Clark - Article assessed as Stub. --TommyBoy (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Penny - Article assessed as Start-class by another user. --TommyBoy (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nicholas Mavroules - Upgraded to Start-class. --TommyBoy (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Bill Nelson - Upgraded to C-class --TommyBoy (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Rick Crawford (politician) - Upgraded to Start-classs --TommyBoy (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tulsi Gabbard: I significantly improved this article and tried my hand at initially assessing it. I'm not too sure about its importance, because Gabbard has drawn international attention (especially from India) because she'll be the first Hindu Congresswoman, but other than that she's more of domestic interest. Sumana Harihareswara 18:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Request an assessment on Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Article has been rewritten and is basically a new article.Casprings (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Wirth - Assessed as Start-class. --TommyBoy (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Debbie Dingell - Upgraded to C-class. --TommyBoy (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank J. Larkin - Assessed as Stub. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- John Salazar - Assessed as Start-class. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- United States Congress Joint Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies - Assessed as Start-class.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Lyman K. Bass - Upgraded to Start-class.--TommyBoy (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordinal Congresses (1st Congress … 112 Congress) should be assessed:
- class=list | importance=high | subject=event.
- Steve Horn (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
|