Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a23b029d1ab38a31

Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doctor Who articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Total
FA 1 5 2 8
FL 5 1 3 9
GA 2 39 164 23 228
B 6 30 58 20 114
C 6 50 188 74 318
Start 9 59 249 317
Stub 4 5 198 207
List 2 9 37 1 49
Category 253 253
Disambig 10 10
File 739 739
Portal 1 1
Project 51 51
Redirect 13 88 569 1,128 1,798
Template 78 78
Other 12 12
Assessed 14 153 577 1,175 2,273 4,192
Total 14 153 577 1,175 2,273 4,192
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 4,897 Ω = 4.11
Shortcuts

Welcome to the assessment department of the Doctor Who WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Doctor Who 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 Doctor Who}} talk page project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Doctor Who articles by quality and Category:Doctor Who articles by importance, which serve as the sources for an automatically generated worklist.

A committee is being formed to help with the assessment of Doctor Who related articles.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Doctor Who}} project banner: 

{{WikiProject Doctor Who|class=|importance=|other variable=}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Class Category Importance Pages Notes
FA FA-Class Doctor Who articles 8
FL FL-Class Doctor Who articles 9
GA GA-Class Doctor Who articles 228
B B-Class Doctor Who articles 114
C C-Class Doctor Who articles 318
Start Start-Class Doctor Who articles 317
List List-Class Doctor Who articles 49
Stub Stub-Class Doctor Who articles 207 Make sure {{DoctorWho-stub}} is on the article page. (48 tagged)
Disambig Disambig-Class Doctor Who pages 10
Redirect Redirect-Class Doctor Who pages 1,798
Category Category-Class Doctor Who pages 253
File File-Class Doctor Who pages 739 This includes all Doctor Who images.
Portal Portal-Class Doctor Who pages 1
Template Template-Class Doctor Who pages 78
Project Project-Class Doctor Who pages 51
NA NA-Class Doctor Who pages 41
none Unassessed Doctor Who articles 0 Articles for which a valid class is not provided.
Total Doctor Who articles 1,250  

Classes should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Doctor Who articles. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

[edit]
Shortcut
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. "The Stolen Earth"
(as of Jan 2026)
 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)
(as of Jan 2026)
 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. 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. Genesis of the Daleks
(as of Jan 2026)
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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. Verity Lambert
(as of Jan 2026)
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. "Before the Flood"
(as of Jan 2026)
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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. "Doctor in Distress"
(as of Jan 2026)
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. Lachele Carl
(as of Jan 2026)
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 Doctor Who cast members
(as of Jan 2026)
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Doctor Who Doctors
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. New New York
Portal Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. Portal:Doctor Who
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. WikiProject Doctor Who
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Dalek stories
NA Any non-article page that fits no other classification. The page contains no article content. Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified. The WikiDoctor

Importance scale

[edit]
WikiProject article importance
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Articles that have indelibly associated with Doctor Who on an international scale, e.g. TARDIS and Dalek. The television series and their lead characters should also be included in this category. Dalek
 High Multi-serial and multi-episode articles including episode lists; The Doctors by regeneration articles; Companions from Doctor Who; regular characters from the spin-off television series. Amy Pond
 Mid Serials and episodes; Recurring characters; executive producers; Doctor actors; Elisabeth Sladen; John Barrowman; John Leeson. Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart
 Low Actors and other personnel (there are two other projects that we share those with: WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers and WikiProject Biography) and any articles which do not qualify for the above. Bernard Cribbins

Assessment committee

[edit]

Do you wish to help in assessing articles and deciding what articles should have which quality or importance? Sign up below or start assessing.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Doctor_Who/Assessment&oldid=1359896569"