WikiProject Biography Announcements Departments Work groups Biography article statistics This list is generated automatically on alternate nights. view full worklist Biography articles | Importance | | Top | None | Total | | Quality | FA | 22 | 643 | 665 | FL | | 85 | 85 | A | 2 | 27 | 29 | GA | 20 | 1628 | 1648 | | B | 66 | 15684 | 15750 | | C | 90 | 7660 | 7750 | | Start | | 154283 | 154283 | | Stub | | 469567 | 469567 | | List | | 589 | 589 | | Assessed | 200 | 650166 | 650366 | | Unassessed | | 104190 | 104190 | | Total | 200 | 754356 | 754556 | Welcome to the assessment department of the Biography WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Biography 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. Category:Biography articles by quality serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPBiography}} project banner. Filling in a rating in the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template on the talk page of an article causes the name of that article to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Biography articles by quality. [edit] Frequently asked questions - How can I get an article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Biography WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- 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, 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!
- How may I begin assessing articles?
- Assessment may be done through a variety of ways, but the most efficient is through use of the MetaData article assessment script.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department. [edit] Instructions on how to assess a Biography article An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed biography articles. At present, there are over 100,000 biography articles that need assessment (e.g., that need to have a class inserted in the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template). Biography articles to be assessed have some aspects of the {{WPBiography}} template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. Select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed biography articles. Then, look over the article in anticipation of filling out the parameters of the {{WPBiography}} template. Finally, add in the proper parameters to the talk page template, as outlined below. [edit] Class parameter The following values may be used for the class parameter: Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed biography articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below. [edit] Priority parameter The following values may be used for the priority parameter: 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 priority scale below. Note that the priority is used on the workgroup lists only. [edit] Core parameter The template also has a core=yes parameter for core articles only, as selected by the Core Biographies team. [edit] Quality scale WikiProject article quality grading scheme | Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | FA | The article has attained featured article status. | More detailed criteria | | The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. - It is—
- (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
- (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
- (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
- (e) 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.
- It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
- (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
- (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
- (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
- Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. 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 (see summary style).
| | 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. | Mary Shelley (as of June 2008) | A | The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, 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:How to write a great article. 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, WikiProject Films). | | Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. | Milla Jovovich (as of June 2008) | GA | The article has attained good article status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the good article criteria: - Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Factually accurate and verifiable:
- (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
| | Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. | 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. | Theodore Kaczynski (as of July 2008) | B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the six B-Class criteria: - The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.
- 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 it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
- The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
- The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Captain Beefheart (as of July 2008) | C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. | More detailed criteria | | The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. | | 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 address cleanup issues. | Yma Sumac (as of June 2008) | Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. | More detailed criteria | | The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. | | Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Samuel Beardsley (as of May 2008) | Stub | A very basic description of the topic. | More detailed criteria | | The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. | | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. | Julian Myerscough (as of June 2008) | FL | The article has attained featured list status. | 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) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
- Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
- Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
- 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. | Timeline of Jane Austen (as of March 2008) | List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 mycologists (as of June 2008) | [edit] Priority scale Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the biography falls under. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" 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). Article importance grading scheme | Label | Criteria | Examples | | Top | High probability that non-Historians would look this up. Limited to the top 200 biographies. Must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, across several generations, and in the majority of the world. For instance, Einstein, brilliant physicist, but his theories have affected people outside of physics and in many other countries besides his nation of origin and several generations. His ideas have changed the way people think. No member should give this rating to any biography without first getting Project approval from the other members. | Albert Einstein | | High | Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, across a couple of generations. Had some impact outside their country of origin. | Patrick Henry | | Mid | Important in their discipline. | John Seigenthaler, Sr. | | Low | Subject is notable in their main discipline. | Morena Baccarin | [edit] Requesting an assessment If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Note: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you assess an article, please remove it so that other editors will not waste time reviewing the same articles. Also, make sure to check the overview on Category:Unassessed biography articles for details on how to assess the template. Thanks! Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B'; see Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles for higher assessments. Edit this section and place request here: - Ayaan Ali Khan - Needs initial assessment, thanks! Hekerui (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Statistics [edit] Current status Biography articles | Importance | | Top | None | Total | | Quality | FA | 22 | 643 | 665 | FL | | 85 | 85 | A | 2 | 27 | 29 | GA | 20 | 1628 | 1648 | | B | 66 | 15684 | 15750 | | C | 90 | 7660 | 7750 | | Start | | 154283 | 154283 | | Stub | | 469567 | 469567 | | List | | 589 | 589 | | Assessed | 200 | 650166 | 650366 | | Unassessed | | 104190 | 104190 | | Total | 200 | 754356 | 754556 | [edit] Historical counts All figures given for the end of each month | July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | FA | 34 | 3.80 % | 106 | 0.08 % | 185 | 0.11 % | 193 | 0.11 % | 212 | 0.11 % | 222 | 0.11 % | A | 9 | 1.01 % | 57 | 0.04 % | 77 | 0.05 % | 95 | 0.05 % | 95 | 0.05 % | 104 | 0.05 % | GA | 34 | 3.80 % | 137 | 0.10 % | 195 | 0.12 % | 195 | 0.11 % | 243 | 0.13 % | 266 | 0.14 % | | B | 220 | 24.61 % | 1,383 | 1.05 % | 1,967 | 1.21 % | 2,360 | 1.32 % | 2,682 | 1.44 % | 3,060 | 1.58 % | | Start | 104 | 11.63 % | 4,107 | 3.13 % | 5,634 | 3.47 % | 6,621 | 3.71 % | 7,980 | 4.30 % | 34,554 | 9.37 % | | Stub | 67 | 7.49 % | 3,515 | 2.68 % | 27,816 | 17.12 % | 41,572 | 23.27 % | 43,715 | 23.59 % | 46,635 | 24.15 % | | Assessed | 468 | 52.35 % | 9,305 | 7.10 % | 35,874 | 22.08 % | 51,036 | 28.56 % | 54,927 | 29.65 % | 59,904 | 31.03 % | | Unassessed | 426 | 47.65 % | 121,800 | 92.90 % | 126,581 | 77.92 % | 127,644 | 71.44 % | 130,325 | 70.35 % | 133,177 | 68.98 % | | Total | 894 | 131,105 | 162,455 | 178,680 | 185,252 | 193,081 | | | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | FA | 238 | 0.11 % | 248 | 0.12 % | 270 | 0.10 % | 286 | 0.08 % | 300 | 0.08 % | 317 | 0.08 % | A | 105 | 0.05 % | 111 | 0.05 % | 109 | 0.04 % | 61 | 0.02 % | 51 | 0.01 % | 62 | 0.02 % | GA | 297 | 0.14 % | 344 | 0.16 % | 358 | 0.13 % | 391 | 0.11 % | 415 | 0.11 % | 451 | 0.11 % | | B | 3,583 | 1.79 % | 4,553 | 2.15 % | 6,699 | 2.52 % | 7,420 | 2.01 % | 7,903 | 2.08 % | 9,941 | 2.52 % | | Start | 9,617 | 4.98 % | 12,049 | 6.02 % | 16,774 | 7.92 % | 29,405 | 11.05 % | 38,107 | 10.04 % | 60,286 | 15.44 % | | Stub | 49,852 | 24.91 % | 62,198 | 29.36 % | 85,677 | 32.02 % | 207,699 | 56.33 % | 219,635 | 57.87 % | 240,797 | 61.14 % | | Assessed | 66,124 | 33.05 % | 84,228 | 39.76 % | 122,518 | 46.05 % | 250,411 | 67.91 % | 266,411 | 70.19 % | 311,854 | 79.18 % | | Unassessed | 133,957 | 66.95 % | 127,639 | 60.25 % | 143,547 | 53.95 % | 118,311 | 32.09 % | 113,126 | 29.81 % | 81,996 | 20.82 % | | Total | 200,081 | 211,867 | 266,065 | 368,722 | 379,537 | 393,850 | | | July 2007 | August 2007 | September 2007 | October 2007 | November 2007 | December 2007 | FA | 325 | 0.08 % | 338 | 0.08 % | 360 | 0.08 % | 368 | 0.08 % | 389 | 0.09 % | 409 | 0.09 % | A | 73 | 0.02 % | 67 | 0.02 % | 72 | 0.02 % | 73 | 0.02 % | 74 | 0.02 % | 22 | 0.005 % | GA | 508 | 0.12 % | 547 | 0.13 % | 578 | 0.13 % | 606 | 0.14 % | 638 | 0.14 % | 705 | 0.15 % | | B | 11,345 | 2.77 % | 12,551 | 2.98 % | 13,017 | 2.95 % | 13,156 | 2.95 % | 13,323 | 2.95 % | 13,493 | 2.92 % | | Start | 72,224 | 17.61 % | 81,464 | 19.33 % | 88,191 | 19.98 % | 89,645 | 20.13 % | 91,489 | 20.27 % | 92,968 | 20.14 % | | Stub | 251,820 | 61.41 % | 263,069 | 62.41 % | 284,594 | 64.46 % | 285,629 | 64.15 % | 288,878 | 64.01 % | 296,518 | 64.22 % | | List | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 79 | 0.02 % | 75 | 0.02 % | | Assessed | 336,295 | 82.01 % | 358,036 | 84.94 % | 386,812 | 87.62 % | 389,477 | 87.48 % | 394,870 | 87.50 % | 404,190 | 87.54 % | | Unassessed | 73,770 | 17.99 % | 63,456 | 15.06 % | 54,677 | 12.38 % | 55,744 | 12.52 % | 56,426 | 12.50 % | 57,506 | 12.46 % | | Total | 410,065 | 421,492 | 441,489 | 445,221 | 451,296 | 461,696 | | | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | May 2008 | June 2008 | FA | 428 | 0.09 % | 441 | 0.09 % | 467 | 0.09 % | 484 | 0.09 % | 499 | 0.10 % | 515 | 0.10 % | A | 19 | 0.004 % | 19 | 0.004 % | 20 | 0.004 % | 22 | 0.004 % | 20 | 0.004 % | 22 | 0.004 % | GA | 757 | 0.15 % | 784 | 0.16 % | 878 | 0.17 % | 934 | 0.18 % | 983 | 0.19 % | 984 | 0.19 % | | B | 13,629 | 2.74 % | 13,698 | 2.74 % | 14,023 | 2.78 % | 14,160 | 2.78 % | 14,460 | 2.80 % | 14,594 | 2.79 % | | C | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 119 | 0.02 % | | Start | 94,615 | 19.03 % | 95,799 | 19.20 % | 100,651 | 19.92 % | 103,688 | 20.34 % | 109,457 | 21.19 % | 112,541 | 21.51 % | | Stub | 308,861 | 62.11 % | 311,161 | 62.35 % | 318,234 | 62.99 % | 323,539 | 63.47 % | 333,698 | 64.59 % | 340,940 | 65.16 % | | List | 93 | 0.02 % | 92 | 0.02 % | 106 | 0.02 % | 108 | 0.02 % | 109 | 0.02 % | 114 | 0.02 % | | Assessed | 418,402 | 84.13 % | 421,994 | 84.56 % | 434,379 | 85.98 % | 442,935 | 86.90 % | 459,226 | 88.89 % | 469,829 | 89.80 % | | Unassessed | 78,898 | 15.87 % | 77,071 | 15.44 % | 70,843 | 14.02 % | 66,799 | 13.10 % | 57,410 | 11.11 % | 53,385 | 10.20 % | | Total | 497,300 | 499,065 | 505,222 | 509,734 | 516,636 | 523,214 | [edit] Monthly changes Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class. To calculate the information for one class, where x = amount of articles in class that month and i = amount of articles in the class the previous month... Amount of articles change = x - i; Percent change = (x / i) * 100 - 100, then round up to the nearest one hundredth of a perecent. | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | FA | +72 | +211.76 % | +79 | +74.53 % | +8 | +4.32 % | +19 | +9.84 % | +10 | +4.72 % | A | +48 | +533.33 % | +20 | +35.09 % | +18 | +23.38 % | +0 | +0.00 % | +9 | +9.47 % | GA | +103 | +302.94 % | +58 | +42.34 % | +0 | +0.00 % | +48 | +24.62 % | +23 | +9.47 % | | B | +1,163 | +528.64 % | +584 | +42.23 % | +393 | +19.98 % | +322 | +13.64 % | +378 | +14.09 % | | Start | +4,003 | +3,849.04 % | +1,527 | +37.18 % | +987 | +17.52 % | +1,359 | +20.53 % | +1,637 | +20.51 % | | Stub | +3,448 | +5,146.27 % | +24,301 | +691.35 % | +13,756 | +49.45 % | +2,143 | +5.15 % | +2,920 | +6.68 % | | Assessed | +8,837 | +1,888.25 % | +26,569 | +285.53 % | +15,162 | +42.26 % | +3,891 | +7.62 % | +4,977 | +9.06 % | | Unassessed | +121,374 | +28,491.55 % | +4,781 | +3.93 % | +1,063 | +0.84 % | +2,681 | +2.10 % | +2,852 | +2.19 % | | Total | +130,211 | +14,564.99 % | +31,350 | +23.91 % | +16,225 | +9.99 % | +6,572 | +3.68 % | +7,829 | +4.23 % | | | January 2007 | February 2007 | March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | FA | +16 | +6.72 % | +10 | +4.20 % | +22 | +8.87 % | +16 | +5.93 % | +14 | +4.90 % | A | +1 | +0.96 % | +6 | +5.71 % | -2 | -1.80 % | -48 | -44.04 % | -10 | -16.39 % | GA | +31 | +11.65 % | +47 | +15.83 % | +14 | +4.07 % | +33 | +9.22 % | +24 | +6.14 % | | B | +523 | +17.09 % | +970 | +27.07 % | +2,146 | +47.13 % | +721 | +10.76 % | +483 | +6.51 % | | Start | +2,432 | +25.29 % | +4,725 | +39.22 % | +12,631 | +75.30 % | +5,149 | +17.51 % | +8,702 | +29.59 % | | Stub | +3,217 | +6.90 % | +12,346 | +24.77 % | +23,479 | +37.75 % | +122,022 | +142.42 % | +11,936 | +5.75 % | | Assessed | +6,220 | +10.38 % | +18,104 | +27.28 % | +38,290 | +45.46 % | +127,893 | +104.39 % | +16,000 | +6.39 % | | Unassessed | +780 | +0.58 % | -6,318 | -4.72 % | +15,908 | +12.46 % | -25,236 | -17.58 % | -5,185 | -4.38 % | | Total | +7,000 | +3.63 % | +11,786 | +5.89 % | +54,198 | +25.58 % | +102,657 | +38.58 % | +10,815 | +2.93 % | | | June 2007 | FA | +17 | +5.67 % | A | +11 | +21.57 % | GA | +36 | +8.67 % | | B | +2,038 | +25.79 % | | Start | +22,179 | +58.20 % | | Stub | +21,162 | +9.64 % | | Assessed | +45,443 | +17.06 % | | Unassessed | -31,130 | -27.52 % | | Total | +14,313 | +3.77 % | [edit] Assessment log - The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log [edit] Worklist - The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality |