Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror/Assessment

WikiProject Horror
Main project page + talk Announcements (template) talk  → Article alerts  → Cleanup listing  → New articles  → Popular pages Notice Board + talk Horror fiction Subportal talk
Departments Assessment talk  → Assessment Top-importance talk Collaboration of the Month talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Review talk Style Guidelines talk Task Center talk
Participant watchlist Announcements (template) watch Collaboration of the Month watch Notice Board watch
Project organization Coordinators talk  → Coordinator nominations Participants talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Task forces Saw task force talk Related task forces Alien task force talk Buffyverse task force talk Castlevania task force talk Devil May Cry task force talk Silent Hill task force talk Twilight task force talk The X-Files task force talk
This box: view talk edit • changes

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Horror. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's fictional horror related articles. 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.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Horror}} talk page project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Horror articles by quality and Category:Horror articles by importance, which serve as the sources for an automatically generated worklist.

How do I add an article to the WikiProject?

Just add {{WikiProject Horror}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

Someone put a {{WikiProject Horror}} template on an article, but it's not a horror related article. What should I do?

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).

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of WikiProject Horror is free to add or change the rating of an article.

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.

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 WP:1.0 have been able to devise.

How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?

A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here.

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 ask them on the main project general forum page, or contact one of the other members directly.

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

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class horror articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class horror articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class horror articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class horror articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class horror articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class horror articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class horror articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class horror articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class horror articles)		List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed horror articles.

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Horror}} project banner on its talk page:

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA and should be omitted in those cases. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance horror articles.

Quality scale

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: 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. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. 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 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.[under discussion]	Vampire (as of September 2010)
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. 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) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (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. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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.	N/A
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject 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:Article development. 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).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help.	Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin (as of March 2010)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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.	Resident Evil (film) (as of July 2010)
B	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. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. 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 does not need to be "brilliant". 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. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. 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. 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.	A Nightmare on Elm Street (as of May 2010)
C	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.	Zombie (as of October 2010)
Start	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.	Alone in the Dark (as of April 2010)
Stub	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.	Comedy horror (as of March 2010)
List	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.	List of minor Buffy the Vampire Slayer characters (as of December 2010)

These criteria apply to general-content articles. The style guidelines provides additional guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.

Each horror-related article has its assessment included within the {{WikiProject Horror}} template, such as {{WikiProject Horror|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Horror articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

B-Class criteria

Special emphasis is given to the six criteria that B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet:

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are meant to be a probable indication of how significant the topic is to fictional horror on a whole, and how likely it would be covered in a serious encyclopedia. Hence, for example, Edgar Allan Poe's "The Tell-Tale Heart" would be ranked higher than Anne Rice's Interview with the Vampire or Stephen King's Insomnia and Nosferatu would be ranked higher than Bram Stoker's Dracula or Sleepaway Camp.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Requests for assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below at the bottom of the list. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

To assess an article, simply update the WikiProject Horror template on the article's talk page. Please also strike out the request on this page by using the <s>Strike-through text</s> command and add a rationale for your assessment. Don't forget to sign your username after your comment.

1. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre — What would be the appropriate rating to give this article? It seems to be a pretty notable film in terms of it's cultural and historical significance in the Horror genre. --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I've assessed it as High, but you should nominate it for Top, which can be done here. hornoir (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. The Orphanage (2007 film) — Should this film perhaps be rated higher then Low? It won several Goya Awards in it's Native Spain and was presented at the Canned Film Festival with acclaim (rare for a genre film let alone a horror film there). The article was called by the Toronto Star as "The year's best horror picture" and made several top ten lists including The New Yorker. That could at least make it Mid-importance I think. Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I assessed it at Low, but that might be my personal bias; I just don't envision it having any lasting importance to the genre. If someone thinks a better assessment is in order, I won't dispute it. hornoir (talk) 04:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough. I just think it's more important and relevant then another Low-class Horror article such as Maneater. ;) I think horror films from this decade that got a good amount of critical praise should be at least rated mid. Such as 28 Days Later, The Descent, Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary, Ginger Snaps, Grindhouse, The Host, Let the Right One In, The Orphanage, The Others and Shaun of the Dead should be considered at least mid-importance as they are some of the most critically praised films of the genre in the decade.

3. Alien (Alien franchise) Deserves a rating. Eoghan1234 (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The article appears to meet all B-Class criteria, so I've assessed it as such. I placed an importance of High on it as well, as I think the average person would expect the article to exist. hornoir (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. The Texas Chain Saw Massacre. This time the quality: a lot has been done to the article over the past several months, and I'd think it'd be a good candidate to be A-class status. It may not be quite at FA status yet, but I think it could be an A-class article.--EclipseSSD (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010 film) I agree, start class is correct, but for the importance, I say it deserves a top or high rating ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 01:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Top or high? This film isn't even out yet. What makes it more important to the genre then any other horror remake? I'd rate it low or maybe even mid myself. Andrzejbanas (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) I went through checklist, met B-Class criteria correctly ISTHnR | Knock Knock | Who's There? 03:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Constantine (film): Previously rated as start class. I've been working immensely to improve the quality of this article. I request for a review as to the current class on the quality scale. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Space Gun (video game): Previously rated as Stub class. I have been working on this horror game page for a little while and feel it's quality has been improved enough to be reviewed. It could be increased to C or B-class. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This was assessed as C-class. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 13:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9. J. Vernon Shea - I came across this friend and protégé of HPL and Klarkash-Ton redlinked in Cthulhu Mythos reference codes and bibliography, so I've done the best I could for him with the resources I could find, but the fullest bio (an in memoriam by writers like L. Sprague de Camp, Robert Bloch, and Donald Wandrei) is out of my reach, no closer than Austin TX, and I'm going public to get more hands involved since it's still bare bones in bio details. Thanks! — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 13:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. The Human Centipede (First Sequence):A start-class article on a horror film I have been working on in collaboration with some other editors. We've got a fair bit of information about the film, all well written and all well referenced, and have some images with alt texts. I believe it may now meet B class criteria or if not at least C class and would like it to be assessed based upon the quality scale. Thanks. Coolug (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Saw VI: Already received a B class in WikiProject Films. Would like someone from here to take a look. Thanks. -Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 06:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Space Gun (video game): has now achieved B-Class on project video games, requesting an assessment at this project as well. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Resident Evil: Degeneration - Currently "start class". Requesting evaluation and possible upgrade to B-class.-- OsirisV (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14. Don't Look Now – Needs to be allocated B class status. Also, since I'm currently working on this article any suggestions to get it up to GA status would be appreciated. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Now a GA. Best, -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

15. Constantine (film) - Requesting re-assessment of this article currently rated as C-Class. Any tips on raising it's status further would be appreciated. Thanks. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② 17:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Final Destination - The article is already a GA nominee. However, it is rated as C-class in the quality scale, while it has no rating at all in the importance scale. In my opinion, Final Destination must be rated as High-importance for the following reasons: a) The film started the franchise which was considered as a standard example of the splatter film genre during this decade; b) The film's respective franchise gathered $497 million worldwide as of June 2011, earning more revenue than the Halloween franchise (which grossed only $366 million); and c) The film won the Saturn Award for Best Horror Film in 2000. Not only that, the article at least meets the standard of B-class in the quality scale. Reassessment in this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! FDJoshua22 13:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Kaneto Shindō - Currently being rewritten and expanded, but just curious if this group is interested in him.--66.212.78.220 (talk) 18:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. The_Ghost_Pirates - Added synopsis of the novel as well as brief overview of literary and thematic elements. I'm not sure the article still qualifies as a Stub. I would be happy to add more content if it is felt it would significantly improve the article. Sifukurt (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Georges Méliès - Requesting an assessment for B article status.--206.188.36.84 (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Something Upstairs - added a detailed synopsis of the book then simplified some of it, I believe it's much better than the stub it used to be a year ago. AngusWOOF (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Ernest Dickerson- I've recently updated this page, trying to bring up Dickerson's horror oriented projects (but without a special/dedicated section that would have been counter-intuitive IMHO; advices from the Project Horror team are welcome by the way). In any case, considering that the Dickerson directed episode finale of The Walking Dead was such a rating success, the importance scale might be re-assessed here. -Arch (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. Louis Feuillade - Just wondering if this group was interested. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. Dementia (film) I've expanded this article, adding various infos with sources, which should lift it above its current stub status. - Robert Kerber (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You were talking about Dementia (1955 film), maybe moved since then, correct? @Robert Kerber.  Done -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mushy Yank Goodness, 10 years ago, I had completely forgotten about my contributions in the meantime. Thanks, anyway. Robert Kerber (talk) 11:40, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

24. All the Boys Love Mandy Lane — have added a great deal of information, including cast and characters, production information, critical reception, and the film's release history and soundtrack. Scottdoesntknow (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
25. Alice Johnson – Pretty sure this isn't a redirect like it is currently listed--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
26. The Vampire Diaries – Most of the stuff on the page now has redirects which was the only thing missing on the last evaluation. Maybe its time to reevaluate it--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 08:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
27. Our Lady of the Inferno - I've made significant edits since the page was first assessed, and would like both to see if it's moved into C or even maybe B status and what needs to be done to help improve it further. Captbloodrock (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
28. Gothic double I have expanded this article from a stub - while it is not about a specific horror text, I have included information about a variety of Gothic horror novels, films and short stories which use the double motif. Please let me know if this article is suitable for this WikiProject, and if so I would really appreciate an assessment. Thank you! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 02:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Current status

Horror articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	2	11	11	43			67
FL			3	15			18
A				1			1
GA	8	27	83	296		16	430
B	11	52	71	212		45	391
C	15	95	219	1,069		240	1,638
Start	8	91	333	4,456		1,823	6,711
Stub		10	42	2,035		1,450	3,537
List		5	12	235		41	293
Category				3	1,567		1,570
Disambig				1	18		19
File				32	124		156
Portal					1		1
Project					57		57
Redirect		1	8	300	586		895
Template				1	202		203
Other			1	7	101		109
Assessed	44	292	783	8,706	2,656	3,615	16,096
Unassessed				2		128	130
Total	44	292	783	8,708	2,656	3,743	16,226
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 63,363			Ω = 4.96

Historical count

Historical counts for the overall project. All figures are taken from the end of each quarter.

• v
• t
• e

Quality	July 2006		October 2006		January 2007		April 2007		July 2007		October 2007
FA	7	0.52%	9	0.58%	10	0.55%	12	0.58%	16	0.75%	17	0.72%
FL	Featured List-Class did not exist yet
A	0	0%	2	0.13%	2	0.11%	2	0.1%	2	0.09%	3	0.13%
GA	2	0.15%	8	0.52%	11	0.61%	14	0.67%	15	0.7%	18	0.77%
B	0	0%	72	4.64%	96	5.32%	100	4.81%	146	6.8%	159	6.76%
C	C-Class did not exist yet
Start	0	0%	366	23.58%	470	26.07%	491	23.64%	763	35.54%	822	34.96%
Stub	0	0%	492	31.7%	702	38.94%	836	40.25%	1205	56.12%	1299	55.25%
List	List-Class did not exist yet
Assessed	9	0.67%	949	61.15%	1291	71.6%	1455	70.05%	2147	100%	2318	98.6%
Unassessed	1336	99.33%	603	38.85%	512	28.4%	622	29.95%	0	0%	33	1.4%
Total	1345		1552		1803		2077		2147		2351
Quality	January 2008		April 2008		July 2008		October 2008		January 2009		April 2009
FA	16	0.67%	21	0.86%	22	0.89%	22	0.87%	22	0.84%	29	0.93%
FL	Featured List-Class did not exist yet				0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
A	1	0.04%	1	0.04%	1	0.04%	1	0.04%	1	0.04%	2	0.06%
GA	24	1%	28	1.15%	31	1.25%	32	1.27%	43	1.64%	53	1.7%
B	165	6.89%	164	6.71%	167	6.73%	113	4.48%	111	4.24%	116	3.72%
C	C-Class did not exist yet						12	0.48%	18	0.69%	37	1.19%
Start	830	34.64%	832	34.06%	838	33.78%	896	35.53%	916	35.02%	1142	36.6%
Stub	1333	55.63%	1326	54.28%	1328	53.53%	1348	53.45%	1381	52.79%	1597	51.19%
List	23	0.96%	24	0.98%	24	0.97%	26	1.03%	26	0.99%	31	0.99%
Assessed	2392	99.83%	2396	98.08%	2411	97.18%	2450	97.15%	2518	96.25%	3007	96.38%
Unassessed	4	0.17%	47	1.92%	70	2.82%	72	2.85%	98	3.75%	113	3.62%
Total	2396		2443		2481		2522		2616		3120

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; due to its size (ca 100 kB), it cannot be transcluded directly.