Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks

The assessment department of the Military history WikiProject focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's military history articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program.



The assessment system used by the Military history WikiProject to rate article quality consists of two parallel quality scales; one scale is used to assess regular prose articles, while the other is used to assess lists and similar non-prose articles. The progression of articles along these scales is described in greater detail below.

Prose article List article
Stub The first stage of an article's evolution is called a stub. A stub is an extremely short article that provides a basic description of the topic at best; it includes very little meaningful content, and may be little more than a dictionary definition. At this stage, it is often impossible to determine whether the topic should be covered by a prose article or a list, so this assessment level is shared between the two scales.
Arrow southwest.svg
Arrow southeast.svg
Start List A stub that undergoes some development will progress to the next stage of article evolution. An article at this stage provides some meaningful content, but is typically incomplete and lacks adequate references, structure, and supporting materials. At this stage, it becomes possible to distinguish between prose articles and lists; depending on its form, an article at this level will be assessed as a Start-Class prose article or a List-Class list.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
C CL As the article continues to develop, it will reach the C-Class level. At this stage, the article is reasonably structured and contains substantial content and supporting materials, but may still be incomplete or poorly referenced, but not both. As articles progress to this stage, the assessment process begins to take on a more structured form, and specific criteria are introduced against which articles are rated.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
B BL An article that reaches the B-Class level is complete in content and structure, adequately referenced, and includes reasonable supporting materials; overall, it provides a satisfactory encyclopedic presentation of the topic for the average reader, although it might not be written to the standard that would be expected by an expert. Articles at this stage commonly undergo peer review to solicit ideas for further improvement. B-Class is the final assessment level that can be reached without undergoing a formal review process, and is a reasonable goal for newer editors.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
GA After reaching the B-Class level, an article may be submitted for assessment as a good article. Good articles must meet a set of criteria similar to those required for the B-Class assessment level, and must additionally undergo the formal good article review process. This assessment level is available only for prose articles; no comparable level exists for lists.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
A-Class article A A-Class list AL A good or B-Class article that has undergone additional improvement may be considered for the A-Class assessment level. An A-Class article presents a complete and thorough encyclopedic treatment of a subject, such as might be written by an expert in the field; the only deficiencies permissible at this level are minor issues of style or language. To receive an A-Class rating, a candidate article must undergo the formal military history A-Class review process. The A-Class rating is the highest assessment level that may be assigned by an individual WikiProject; higher assessment levels are granted only by Wikipedia-wide independent assessment processes.
Arrow south.svg
Arrow south.svg
Featured article FA Featured list FL The featured article and featured list ratings represent the pinnacle of article evolution and the best that Wikipedia has to offer; an article at this level is professional, outstanding, and represents a definitive source for encyclopedic information. Featured status is assigned only through a thorough independent review process; this process can be grueling for the unprepared, and editors are highly advised to submit articles for A-Class review prior to nominating them for featured status.


The following tables summarize the criteria used to assess articles at each level of the quality assessment scale. In addition to the criteria, the tables list the assessment process used at each level and provide an example of an article previously assessed at that level.

Assessment criteria for prose articles
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
Featured article FA The article meets all the featured article criteria. Featured article candidacy USS Chesapeake (as of June 2011)
A-Class article A The article meets all of the A-Class criteria. A-Class review Lockheed D-21 (as of June 2011)
GA The article meets all of the good article criteria. Good article review Al-Mundhir III ibn al-Harith (as of June 2011)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. Individual review Battle of Guttstadt-Deppen (as of June 2011)
C The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Individual review Incident at Xuanwu Gate (as of June 2011)
Start The article meets the Start-Class criteria. Individual review Paris Declaration Respecting Maritime Law (as of June 2011)
Stub The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Individual review Eagle Point National Cemetery (as of June 2011)
Assessment criteria for lists
Class Criteria Assessment process Example
Featured list FL The list meets all the featured list criteria. Featured list candidacy Army of the Danube order of battle (as of June 2012)
A-Class list AL The list meets all of the A-Class criteria. A-Class review List of battlecruisers of the United States (as of May 2012)
BL The list meets all of the B-Class criteria. Individual review List of hill forts in England (as of June 2012)
CL The list meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Individual review List of assault rifles (as of June 2012)
List The list meets the List-Class criteria. Individual review List of Airborne Artillery Units (as of June 2012)
Stub The list meets none of the List-Class criteria. Individual review List of supercavitating torpedoes (as of June 2012)


This section describes the different processes used to assess the quality of military history articles.

Individual review[edit]

The individual review process is used for all assessment activities up to the B-Class level. In this process, any editor may review an article against the listed criteria and assign the corresponding quality rating themselves.

Article authors are free to assess their own articles under this process. However, by convention, the final assessment for a B-Class rating is typically left to an independent editor; requests for an independent assessment may be made at the assessment request page.

Peer review[edit]

The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.

By convention, military history articles are typically listed in the history section of the main peer review request page; however, articles may be listed in other sections if their primary topic lies in another field.

Good article review[edit]

The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria.

Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.

A-Class article/list review[edit]

The military history A-Class review process is the most thorough and demanding assessment of article quality done by the Military history WikiProject. An article that undergoes this process must be reviewed by at least three independent examiners, each of whom must agree that the article meets all of the A-Class criteria.

Full instructions for requesting an A-Class review are provided on the A-Class review page.

Featured article/list candidacy[edit]

The featured article candidacy and featured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets the featured article or list criteria.

Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.


An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner on its talk page:


The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:

The class parameter should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following classes may be used for non-article pages; many are automatically generated by the template when it is placed on a page of the corresponding type:


See also the general assessment FAQ and the project's B-Class assessment & criteria FAQ and A-Class review & criteria FAQ.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WPMILHIST}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WPMILHIST}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. 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).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Military history 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.
5. Can I assess articles that I have written or contributed significantly to?
For the most part, yes—in fact, you are encouraged to do so. B-Class assessment, by convention, is generally undertaken by an independent editor (requests can be made here), and A-Class promotion requires the consensus of multiple independent reviewers. However, if your article falls within the Stub- to C-Class range, by awarding the rating yourself you are helping to prevent the assessment requests process becoming overloaded.
6. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions 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.
7. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
8. 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.
9. Where can I get more comments about an article?
The peer review process can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
10. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.
11. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
12. 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 this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page, or contact the project coordinators directly.


Requests for A-Class review[edit]

Tiberius IIIInvasion of KageraDęblin–Irena GhettoBattle of HelPartisan Congress riotsHistoriography of the CrusadesLeontiosHeraklonasTennessee-class battleshipNassau AgreementFirst Battle of NewtoniaManuel NoriegaLockheed F-104 StarfighterAlfred WordenBenjamin Lewis HodgeList of avisos of GermanyTreaty of LutatiusAmerican logistics in the Normandy campaignBattle of Cape Hermaeum

Requests for assessment[edit]

Please note that this section is transcluded from a separate requests page, which you may wish to add to your watchlist.

Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria(FAQ) up to and including C-Class. If you have made significant improvements to an article against one or more of B-class criteria and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below, specifying which criteria you have worked on. If you feel unable to assess against one or more of the B-class criteria, please say so when posting. Requests for formal A-Class review should be made at the review department. Please consider entering articles you have improved in the military history article writing contest.

Experienced assessors are encouraged to take a look at User:Hawkeye7/Bot assessed B class articles and check a few of Milhistbot's B-Class assessments. Feel free to downgrade them if you consider they don't meet one or more the criteria. Please also delete any that you have checked. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Assessment, whose articles often overlap with military history topics.

  • Royal Netherlands Army - Rewrote and restructured the article from begin to end, 104 new sources. --Bliekindewater (talk) 19:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
    On first glance, it looks good - I'm not an expert, but should it include something on the Free Dutch? Or is that a different topic? Robinvp11 (talk) 17:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks for the feedback! The Free Dutch Forces were mainly loosely affiliated military formations and are not very well known collectively under the name Free Dutch Forces in the Netherlands. Therefore, I decided to name two separate units established in the UK, the Princess Irene Brigade and No. 2 (Dutch) Troop respectively, under the World Wars section. Nonetheless, if you (or anyone else) feels it should be added, just let me know. Greetings --Bliekindewater (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    @Bliekindewater: G'day, nice work. I definitely think the Free Dutch Forces would be worth a link and a sentence or two more. Wouldn't need to be too detailed, but I'd suggest at least mentioning their albeit minor involvement in some of the later Allied campaigns in the Pacific as it currently implies there was no involvement in that theatre after 1942. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:02, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    @AustralianRupert: Note that the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army was not part of the Royal Netherlands Army. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks, in that case I'd suggest that the addition could make it clear that a separate force was raised during World War II and that the two organisations were considered different/not related. Those interested in the history of the Free Dutch Forces can then click on a link to read about that topic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Sure thing, feel free to add a link to WWII section.Bliekindewater (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
  • HMS Rapid (1916) - updated with references. Please reassess simongraham (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    Lead is a bit light, article needs more on Background ie what gap was it trying to fill, and also why it wasn't renewed. The Design section seems to be a longer version of the Infobox. Have a look at the FA for Warship Project, should be clearer. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for this very helpful feedback. I have added to the lead and a bit about the Navy's rationale for retiring these destroyers. Can you please give a link to the FA? Similar articles seem to be User:Hawkeye7/Bot assessed articles HMS Echo (H23) along with HMS Milne (1914) and HMS Tornado (1917). Is there a better model please? simongraham (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    I was looking at this one USS Alaska (CB-1); please note, I'm not suggesting you need to add more words - its the format and content that matters eg I don't think you need to repeat all the detail on design (its in the Infobox). Also, per Wikipedia, 60% of users will only ever read the Lead, so its the most important part of the article. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
    With all due respect, Robin, I disagree. For a B class rating everything in the infobox should be mentioned in the body and cited. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    Fair enough, although I'm slightly puzzled as to the point of the Infobox. Since I'm learning all the time, could you point me to where I can find these stipulations; that will prevent me confusing others. Thanks. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
    G'day, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE provides " the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ provides some pointers about referencing and completeness and other aspects that apply at B class level, while the B class criteria can be found here. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
    To elaborate a bit more: the Lead, the Body and the Infobox must be able to stand separately (with the Lead and Infobox being a summary of material that is sourced in the Body), because under certain circumstances they are indeed used separately. Books autogenerated from Wikipedia pages may only use the Body; Portals may autogenerate content from the Leads; search engines may only use the Infobox. On the English Wikipedia we maintain our Infoboxes by hand, but they can be automatically generated through Wikidata, which provides an automated translation into other languages. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks. I understand the B class criteria as set out above, there seems to be a fair amount of interpretation - which is fine by me, as long as we're all clear. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    I am very willing to help if there is any way to help make things easier and better. simongraham (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
    simongraham Please don't let me confuse you :) As an ex-infantryman, my attitude towards kit is it always goes wrong, so I focus on what does it do, not how big it is :). For me, the article is a bit dry but if others feel its ok, that's fine, we don't always have to agree. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yokosuka E6Y - Japanese submarine launched seaplane. Please review for B class simongraham (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Nice work so far. I have assessed it as C class as it probably needs a few more refs where I have marked; if possible another sentence or two about service during the during the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937 might also be a good idea. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your very helpful comments and markups. I have added references and an additional sentence. I have also written an article on the submarine that carried the first E6Y, the Japanese submarine I-5. I would value your views on it. simongraham (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Casta Álvarez — I think it exceeds start-class. Please can you advise if it is B. simongraham (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Needs more to be a B; there must be more on what she spent the rest of her life doing, and worth expanding on why she became famous (eg La guerra de pluma: Sociedad, consumo y vida cotidiana Marieta Cantos Casenave, Fernando Durán López). This link seems to suggest a slightly different version You may get trolled for calling her Spanish :).Robinvp11 (talk) 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. That is really helpful. I have added some more from that reference and elsewhere. Please tell me what you think. simongraham (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Take a look at the article on Agustina de Aragón, another of the Zaragoza heroines; her article needs work, but its worth linking the two eg its clearly part of a deliberate mythologisation. That (for me) is the bit that's missing - its not really clear why what she did was so memorable. Does it connect to Dolores Ibárruri ie is this a Catalan thing :) Robinvp11 (talk) 15:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Operation Ramrod 16 Something of work in progress, C or B?Keith-264 (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    Very comprehensive and you've done a lot of work. Can you condense it? Almost too much detail for an online encyclopedia (although others may disagree). Robinvp11 (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree; the level of detail in the short article is fine as is. I draw your attention to our A-class criteria: The article/list is comprehensive, factually accurate, neutral and focused on the main topic; it neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias, and does not go into unnecessary detail. The article is nearly a B. It just need references for notes a, b and c. On this, Nos 464 and 487 Squadrons Article XV squadrons formed under the Empire Air Training Scheme. The dominions contributed personnel, some of which were used to form national units. These were allocated numbers in the 400s, and treated like RAF units, but their battle honours and lineage belonged to the RAAF, RCAF or RNZAF. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
    "...It neglects no major facts or details, presents views fairly and without bias", is not the same as specifying length ie does not go into unnecessary detail. If these are being written for Wikipedia users, and I seem to be in a minority of one for taking that view, the longer it is, the less likely anyone will read it. That's a fact. Doesn't need to be discussed further, but the vast majority of 'guidelines', can be, and are, interpreted to fit individual views.Robinvp11 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    Sure. A lot of flexibility is required because the needs of articles varies. Think about it from the readers' point of view. In the case of an article like this one, the reader has searched for a very specific and obscure action, and will almost certainly be seeking detailed information. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Added a ref for you for one of the notes that Hawkeye mentions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Bridges' Battery Illinois Light Artillery - American Civil War. Please assess for B class. Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Luis de Lacy - think its a B. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    B class. Note (1) how the citation template is used with multiple authors (2) hard-coded image size are deplored, as you don't know what the users' screen sizes are, and they can set their own defaults. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
    Noted, I've tried to update where possible. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • John Huske; another obscure 18th century general. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Nice work, but it needs one fix before it is B class. Please see the talk page under "B class review comments". Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      I've tweaked the references. Note the correct way of acknowledging an editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      B class. Djmaschek (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Changes made, see TP for explanation. Noted re editors, thanks both. Robinvp11 (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thomas Fowke, another in the line :) Robinvp11 (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • John Cope (British Army officer), Prestonpans commander. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • B class. Good work. I made some minor changes. Djmaschek (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review - I'm always up for taking stuff out :). Robinvp11 (talk) 13:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Battle of Pente Pigadia - Details are sparse so I think C would be fair.--Catlemur (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • B class. There is plenty of information. Djmaschek (talk) 02:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ivan Managarov - Army commander. Kges1901 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Please also check the military history assessment backlog for articles needing assessment.

Assessment backlogs[edit]

Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:


Task forces (general topics)[edit]

Task forces (national and regional)[edit]

Task forces (periods and conflicts)[edit]

Special projects[edit]

Operation Majestic Titan assessment statistics


Operation Majestic Titan (Phase I) assessment statistics


Operation Majestic Titan (Phase II) assessment statistics


Operation Majestic Titan (Phase III) assessment statistics


Operation Majestic Titan (Phase IV) assessment statistics


Operation Majestic Titan (Phase V) assessment statistics