Article assessment (AA) is a weekly process by which articles are submitted for rating under a given topic. The assessment of an article gives praise for good aspects and constructive criticism of any weaker areas.

Article assessment is a two week process. The first week is for accepting new submissions under the given theme, and the second week is for the assessment. Topics do overlap, so any given week sees the assessment of the current topic and acceptance of submissions for the next one.

To submit an article go to relevant subpage, linked to above, and add it to the bottom of the list. No longer applicable; see Wikipedia:Content assessment for current processes.

Submissions must be of a reasonable size, and therefore stubs are not acceptable. Featured articles and current featured article candidates (and featured lists if relevant) are not allowed.

There are several ways in which you can contribute:

1. Add a submission for next week's topic
2. Assess some submissions for this week's topic
3. Expand and improve one of the submissions, or look at the older assessments to see if all the problems have been rectified
4. Add a suggestion for a future topic

The current topic under assessment is shown above.

Past assessment topics are listed here with the articles that received the highest and lowest assessments.

22 articles were assessed. Lots of average articles, with some excellent ones and a couple of fairly poor ones. References were a problem for most articles.

Highest rated:

• Back to the Future (Overall: 9)
• This Is Spinal Tap (Overall: 9)

Lowest rated:

• Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (Overall: 4)
• A Room with a View (film) (Overall: 4)

11 articles were assessed. Most articles were of the same general quality, with no outstanding ones but no particular poor ones either.

Highest rated:

• Mammoth (Overall: 7)
• Quagga (Overall: 7)

Lowest rated:

• Australopithecus (Overall: 5)
• Caribbean Monk Seal (Overall: 5)
• Portuguese Ibex (Overall: 5)

32 articles were assessed. There were some excellent articles and some poor ones.

Highest rated:

• 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (Overall: 9)
• 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (Overall: 9)
• Black Death (Overall: 9)
• Hurricane Floyd (Overall: 9)
• Hurricane Iniki (Overall: 9)

Lowest rated:

• Emergency preparedness (Overall: 4)
• Nisqually earthquake (Overall: 3)
• 2005 Miyagi earthquake (Overall: 2)

If you would like to suggest a topic for assessment please visit the suggestions page.

Evaluations are conducted on the relevant subpage during the assessment week for that topic. Each article is assessed with a score of 1 to 10 under five categories, as listed below. The overall score is the most important of the five.

A few points to remember:

• You do not have to assess every article - just one will do.
• If an article is improved after you have assessed it you are welcome to update your comments and ratings.
• It is bad form to assess an article that you have contributed to significantly, but you are not exempt from doing so - just try and avoid bias.

How complete an article is - good articles should not have major omissions.

How factual the article is, as shown by:

• The use of inline citations.
• The use of multiple sources where possible, including both online sources and print sources (for example books, magazines and newspaper articles).

How good the prose is, including:

• Spelling, grammar and punctuation.
• Explanation of all the technical terms.
• Clarity, brevity and that indefinable flair that keeps the reader interested in the topic.

How well structured the article is both in itself and with regards to other articles, including:

• The size of the lead.
• The use of sections and heading levels.
• The positioning of images, templates and tables.
• How well the article links to other articles and how they link to it.

How nice the article looks, based on:

• Location and 'look' of images
• Style of tables.
• Attractiveness of included templates.

How good the article is overall. You can give this as an average of the other four if you wish.