Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Anime and manga! This department focuses on assessing the quality and importance of articles under the project's scope. The ratings are used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
Following the implementation of project-independent quality assessment in 2023, project-internal quality assessment has become largely outdated. Please ask for an quality assessment at WP:ASSESS/REQ if you would like an article to be reassessed. For project-internal importance assessments, it is encouraged to review the guidelines below and make changes yourself; if you are unsure, then posting at the project's main talk page may be a good idea.
Someone put a {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} template on an article, but it's not an anime or manga related topic. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. 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).
What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of the articles within our scope and to prioritize work on important articles. Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers.
Who can assess articles?
Anyone is free to add or change the rating of an article. Article ratings are shared across all WikiProjects, and therefore consensus should be followed in case of a dispute. GA, FA, and FL assessments have associated formal review processes that must be followed.
How do I rate an article?
Check the assessment scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article, then follow the guidelines below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page.
Where can I get more details or feedback about an article?
The peer review process is one that results in a more thorough examination of articles.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
What about lists?
Lists of episodes, characters, and chapters are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status. Lists which are pure lists of links, however, should be assessed as list class, as they have no real content to be evaluated.
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}} on its talk page. This assessment is shared between all WikiProjects.
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
Other classes are automatically assessed by the template based on namespace, and should not be rated manually. These classes are Category, Draft, File, Portal, Project, Template, and NA/Non-Article.
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;
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
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.
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.
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.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; 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.
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.
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.
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);
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.
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.
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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
GA class — Covers everything well; must be nominated at WP:GAN and passed by an impartial reviewer in order to qualify. Before nominating, the page should include inline sourcing for controversial statements, contain critical reception information, and have no image copyright issues.
Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the article falls under. An article judged to be "Top-importance" in one context may be only "Mid-importance" 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).
All lists, video games and any other notable article that falls within the WikiProject's scope, including most websites, not described in the table below are of low-importance.
Type
Top
High
Mid
Definition
This article is of the utmost importance as it forms the basis of all information.
This article is fairly important as it covers a general area of knowledge.
This article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Series (Main article)
N/A
Lasting impact decades after it was initially released, e.g. Gundam.
Achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan, e.g. YuYu Hakusho.
Characters
N/A
Characters that have become cultural icons outside of the series, e.g. Char Aznable, Goku, Pikachu
Production I.G - I have expanded upon the previous lists of works that were in the article by making tables with sources. I have also reworked the history section of the article. I think the article is due for a reassessment and I would like it to be reviewed by an outside observer. Thanks! Orion409 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I think the article's quite close to getting there, and it's well-sourced, but the History section needs a bit of reorganization; there are several very long paragraphs and then a series of short sentences. Please feel free to ping me on the talk page or ask for an assessment at WP:ASSESS/REQ if this changes. Crestfalling (talk/contribs) 05:02, 23 June 2026 (UTC)reply
Misa Hayase - I have spent the past few months radically rewriting this article, removing WP:Fancruft, bringing it closer to actual compliance with WP:WAF and especially MOS:REALWORLD. I have cleaned up the article from its previous plot summary problems; I have made the lead much tighter and ensured it immediately tells the reader who she is, and why she's notable; added WP:RS sources to verify claims made, keeping reliance on sources like IMDb to the smallest extent (only to confirm voice acting credits); added sections on her production and development process, her characterization, her reception, and her legacy. I have also managed to find scholarly analysis that refers to her as a strong female character pivotal figure in the evolution of the Real robot genre. I believe the article deserves another look now. Odysseus Giacosa (talk) 12:59, 4 March 2026 (UTC)reply
Rascal Does Not Dream - Ranked low importance, despite having 2 anime series', 3 movies with one more upcoming. Internationally recognized (In my Philippine High School a lot of people have heard about it in some way and a decent number have watched it). Another user also left a similar comment on the project's talk page. Anonymous user. April 5 2026
