Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Anime and manga! This department focuses on assessing the quality of articles under the project's scope. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
Someone put a {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} template on an article, but it's not an anime or manga 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).
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 the articles within our scope 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.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Anime and manga WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes. Editors should also note that B-Class assessments require project consensus, while GA, FA, and FL assessments have associated formal review processes that must be followed.
How do I rate an article?
Check the assessment scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article, then follow the guidelines below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
How can I make a request for someone from the project to assess an article?
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.
Where can I get more details or feedback about an article?
The peer review process is one that results in a more thorough examination of articles; to ensure project members also view the article, make sure to list it at our peer review page.
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 (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!
What about lists?
Lists of episodes, characters, and chapters are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status. Lists which are pure lists of links, however, should be assessed as list class, as they have no real content to be evaluated.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
There are other classes used by WP:A&M which are automatically assessed by the template based on namespace, and should not be rated manually. These classes are Category, Draft, File, Portal, Project, Template, and NA/Non-Article. A full list of valid class names and abbreviations can be found at Template:WikiProject Anime and manga/class.
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;
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
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.
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.
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.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; 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.
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.
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);
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GA class — Covers everything well; must be nominated at WP:GAN and passed by an impartial reviewer in order to qualify. Before nominating, the page should include inline sourcing for controversial statements, contain critical reception information, and have no image copyright issues.
C class — Decent structure, lacking some information (typically out of universe info).
Start class — Some structure, basic overview of the topic present.
Stub class — Little structure, severely lacking content. The article may include flaws such as embedded lists without descriptions or lack an infobox.
The following are guidelines for episode, character, and chapter lists. Lists are normally assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status, and are not assessed as good articles.
List class — Transcludes sublists, volume lists which have been split into sublists, or lists which have no potential as articles (such as stand-alone lists and lists which act as navigational aids; this includes, amongst other, lists of series licensed by a publisher). Articles assessed as list class jump straight to featured list status after passing WP:FLC, instead of progressing along the regular assessment scale.
B class — Coherent structure, proper lead, well-referenced with no missing information.
C class — Decent structure; lacks Japanese chapter titles, release information, or references.
Start class — Some structure, basic overview of the topic present; uses the correct formatting templates, but severely lacks content. Basic lead is present.
Stub class — Little structure; severely lacking content, such as chapter names, release dates, or plot summaries. Does not use the appropriate formatting templates ({{Japanese episode list}} for episode lists, or {{Graphic novel list}} for chapter lists) but a simple table, bullet list, numbered list or no formatting at all.
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.
Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the article falls under. An article judged to be "Top-importance" in one context may be only "Mid-importance" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority 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). Articles rated as "low-importance" importance are not necessarily unwanted, but may be candidates for merging into more relevant when appropriate.
All lists, video games and any other notable article that falls within the WikiProject's scope, including most websites, not described in the table below are of low-importance.
Type
Top
High
Mid
Definition
This article is of the utmost importance as it forms the basis of all information.
This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge.
This article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Series (Main article)
N/A
Lasting impact decades after it was initially released, e.g. Gundam.
Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan, e.g. YuYu Hakusho.
Characters
N/A
Characters that have become cultural icons outside of the series, e.g. Char Aznable, Goku, Pikachu
Production I.G - I have expanded upon the previous lists of works that were in the article by making tables with sources. I have also reworked the history section of the article. I think the article is due for a reassessment and I would like it to be reviewed by an outside observer. Thanks! Orion409 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A full log of assessment changes for the past seven days is available; unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly. Archives of previous
featured article candidates
(2006,
2007,
2008),
A-class reviews
(2006,
2007,
2008),
and good article reviews
(2008)
are also available.
