Wikipedia assessment guidelines: How editors judge article quality and reliability

When you read a Wikipedia article, you’re seeing the result of Wikipedia assessment guidelines, a set of community-driven standards used to evaluate article quality, completeness, and reliability. These aren’t rules written by executives—they’re built by thousands of volunteers who ask: Is this accurate? Is it well-sourced? Does it avoid bias? Without these guidelines, Wikipedia would be a mess of half-written drafts and unverified claims. They’re the reason a stub about a local park can be flagged for expansion, while a detailed article on climate science gets marked as "Good" or even "Featured."

These guidelines relate directly to other core parts of Wikipedia’s system. For example, Wikipedia sourcing standards, the requirement that all claims be backed by reliable, published sources feed directly into assessment. An article can’t be rated high quality if it lacks citations. Similarly, Wikipedia conflict of interest policy, which demands transparency when editors have personal stakes in a topic helps ensure assessments aren’t skewed by hidden agendas. And tools like Wikipedia signposts, community flags that highlight gaps in coverage, bias, or poor sourcing give assessors real-time signals about where articles need work. These aren’t separate systems—they’re layers of the same quality control machine.

Assessment isn’t about perfection. It’s about progress. A low-rated article isn’t banned—it’s tagged so editors know where to start improving. Maybe it needs more references. Maybe it’s too short. Maybe it leans too heavily on one perspective. The guidelines make that visible. They turn subjective opinions into shared benchmarks. That’s why librarians, educators, and researchers rely on them: they know what to trust, and more importantly, what to question.

What you’ll find in this collection are real examples of how these guidelines work in practice—from how bots help flag low-quality edits, to how volunteers debate whether an article deserves a higher rating, to how new tools like TemplateWizard reduce errors that would otherwise drag down an article’s score. These aren’t abstract policies. They’re the quiet, daily work that keeps Wikipedia accurate, fair, and useful for everyone.