Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Electronics WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's electronic related articles. 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 {{Electron}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Electronic articles by quality and Category:Electronic articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

FAQ

1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?

Just add {{Electron}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

2. Someone put a {{Electron}} template on an article, but it's not a Electronic related topic. What should I do?

Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).

3. What is the purpose of the article ratings?

The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers. Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.

4. How can I get an article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

5. Who can assess articles?

Any member of the Electronics WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

6. 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.

8. 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.

9. Aren't the ratings subjective?

Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!

10. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?

A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.

11. What if I have a question not listed here?

If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{Electron}} 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 electronic articles category)		FA
FL	(for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class electronic articles category)		FL
A	(for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class electronic articles category)		A
GA	(for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class electronic articles category)		GA
B	(for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class electronic articles category)		B
C	(for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class electronic articles category)		C
Start	(for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class electronic articles category)		Start
Stub	(for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class electronic articles category)		Stub
List	(for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class electronic articles category)		List
NA	(for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class electronic pages category)		NA
???	(articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed electronic articles category)		???

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

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

• Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance electronic articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance electronic articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance electronic articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance electronic articles)

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance electronic articles. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

WikiProject content quality grading scheme

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; 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

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to collectors.

Note that the rating need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; equally well-known topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which this is the case. Thus, the rating given to topics which may seem obscure to an editor from one country—but which are well known in another—should correspond to the higher level of notability in the second country.

Article importance grading scheme

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Well-known to the general reader The subject is well known to people who are not familiar with electronics. Daily use items and products.	Switch Computer
High	Well-known to a reader with casual electronic knowledge The subject is known to a significant number of casual electronic savvy people. Other products and well known components.	PCB
Mid	Known or of interest to a reader with an interest in electronics The subject is not well known, but also not obscure to a reader with an interest in electronics. The subject is unlikely to be interesting to a non-specialist. Less known/historical component level.	Op amp
Low	Everything else The subject is not well known or particularly significant even to someone with a good knowledge of electronics. Laws and theories.

Statistics

Current status

Electronic articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA			5	2			7
A			1				1
GA		4	15	27		1	47
B	15	45	104	76	1	11	252
C	16	113	364	604		50	1,147
Start	2	19	375	1,352		477	2,225
Stub		2	96	507		436	1,041
List	5	4	19	59		1	88
Category					689		689
Disambig					18		18
File					31		31
Portal					16		16
Project					8		8
Template					98		98
NA			18	51	210		279
Other					58		58
Assessed	38	187	997	2,678	1,129	976	6,005
Unassessed				1		233	234
Total	38	187	997	2,679	1,129	1,209	6,239
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 22,820			Ω = 4.83

May 13, 2025

Assessed

• Draft:Passat Ltd (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

May 12, 2025

Assessed

• Draft:Samsung Galaxy Xcover 7 (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

May 11, 2025

Reassessed

• Samsung Galaxy Xcover 6 Pro (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Vivo X90 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

• Faure Electric Accumulator Company (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Fred C. Lee (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:OPALNET (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:The Fix (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

May 10, 2025

Assessed

• Design closure (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

May 9, 2025

Reassessed

• Marx generator (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

May 7, 2025

Reassessed

• Audioengine (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

• Draft:Philips Satinelle vs. Braun Silk-épil 9 (talk) removed.
• Draft:SLIMBOOK (talk) removed.

Requests for assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

• OnePlus TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) needs reassessment since it is no longer just a list, expanded the article and added several more references.--YashPratap1912(CONT.) 02:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

  I've tagged this a WP:PROMO and given it a C rating. Also added it to WP:TELEVISION ~Kvng (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)