Wikipedia quality ratings: How articles are scored and why it matters

When you read a Wikipedia article, you’re not just seeing facts—you’re seeing the result of a Wikipedia quality ratings, a system used by volunteer editors to assess how complete, accurate, and well-sourced an article is. Also known as WikiProject assessments, it’s how the community decides whether an article is a rough draft or a trusted reference. These ratings aren’t assigned by bots or algorithms. They’re decided by real editors who follow clear guidelines, check citations, and compare content against community standards.

Behind every rating—Stub, Start, C, B, GA, Featured—is a set of criteria that measures depth, neutrality, structure, and sourcing. A WikiProject assessment, a collaborative effort where editors group around topics like history, science, or politics to improve articles might spend weeks polishing an article until it meets Featured status. That’s not just about length. It’s about having reliable sources for every claim, no original research, clear lead sections, and proper infoboxes. The article quality, the measurable standard used to evaluate how well an article meets Wikipedia’s editorial expectations isn’t about popularity. It’s about trust. A C-class article on quantum physics might have more citations than a Featured article on a pop culture topic, because the standards are applied differently depending on topic complexity and available sources.

These ratings aren’t hidden. You can see them on any article’s talk page, often in a template that says "Class: B" or "Assessment: GA." They help editors prioritize work—fixing low-quality articles before they get read by millions. They also help readers know what they’re getting. A Featured article has been reviewed by dozens of editors. A Stub? It’s a starting point. The system doesn’t claim perfection, but it does demand transparency. That’s why so many librarians, educators, and researchers rely on these ratings when using Wikipedia for serious work. The Wikipedia standards, the community-defined rules that guide how content is written, cited, and maintained across all language editions are what keep the platform credible, even as it grows.

What you’ll find in the posts below are real examples of how these ratings shape editing work—from tools that help track progress, to how editors fight bias, fix gaps, and push articles from poor to perfect. Whether you’re a new editor wondering how to improve your first article, or a reader trying to judge what’s trustworthy, these stories show you how the system actually works—not just what it says on paper.