• 2.2% List-Class
• 45.7% Stub-Class
• 38.7% Start-Class
• 8.9% C-Class
• 2.7% B-Class
• 0.7% GA-Class
• 0% A-Class
• 0.2% FA-Class
• 0.8% remaining

The assessment department of WikiProject Germany focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to Germany. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Germany}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Germany articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

The assessment system used by WikiProject Germany is fairly orthodox, with two scales. The first evaluates articles, while the other assesses lists. The progression of these articles through this system is described further in the figure below.

Assessment criteria for project content

Class	Criteria	Assessment process	Example
FA	The article meets all the featured article criteria. Detailed 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.	Featured article candidacy	SMS Kaiser (as of 20 April 2017)
FL	The list meets all the featured list criteria. Detailed 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 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. (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.	Featured list candidacy	List of German World War II jet aces (as of 20 April 2017)
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from this WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.	A-Class review	German cruiser Prinz Eugen (as of 20 April 2017)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria. 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.	Good article review	Lichtenstein Castle (Württemberg) (as of 20 April 2017)
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. It is free from major grammatical errors. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.	Individual review	Battle of Halle (as of 20 April 2017)
C	The article meets B1 or B2 as well as B3 and B4 and B5 of the B-Class criteria. Detailed criteria It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. It is free from major grammatical errors. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.	Individual review	Munich (as of 20 April 2017)
Start	The article meets the Start-Class criteria. Detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element; it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including one or more of the following: Five or more citations to support the content 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 A particularly useful picture or graphic	Individual review	7.62mm UKM (as of 20 April 2017)
Stub	The article meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Individual review	Ernst Bach (as of 20 April 2017)

Except for books and a few vital project-related pages, most non-article classes don't need a specific importance parameter.

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

{{WikiProject Germany| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance Germany articles
• High - adds articles to Category:High-importance Germany articles
• Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Germany articles
• Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance Germany articles

WikiProject pertains to the people, places, history, and culture of Germany, and cities, towns, and municipalities check off all of those boxes. All cities/municipalities/districts are to be marked as Mid Importance, and villages within them Low Importance.

This section describes the processes utilized by WikiProject Germany to assess the quality of its articles.

The individual review process is used for all assessment activity up to B-Class articles. Any editor may assess an article or list and assign assessment according to the listed criteria by themselves.

An article's author may use this process to assign assessment themselves. However, the final assessment for B-Class and beyond is typically left in the hands of an independent editor for review. Requests for independent review can be made at the assessment request page.

The peer review process is not used to evaluate an article for a particular assessment level directly; rather, it is a forum where article authors can solicit ideas for further improvements. Peer review is most often requested when an article is at the C-Class or B-Class level; articles at lower levels are typically so incomplete that a meaningful review is impossible, while articles at higher levels go through more formal review processes.

The good article nomination process is an independent review mechanism through which an article receives a "good article" quality rating. The process involves a detailed review of the article by an independent examiner, who determines whether the article meets the good article criteria.

Full instructions for requesting a good article review are provided on the good article review page.

The featured article candidacy and featured list candidacy processes are an independent, Wikipedia-wide quality assessment mechanism; these processes are the only way an article can receive a "featured" quality rating. The process involves a comprehensive review of the article by multiple independent examiners, all of whom must agree that the article meets the featured article or list criteria.

Full instructions for submitting a featured article or list candidacy are provided on the corresponding candidacy page. Editors are advised to carefully review the submission instructions; failing to follow them correctly may cause the submission to be rejected.

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Germany}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

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

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

1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?

The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.

2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?

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

3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Germany}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. 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).

4. Who can assess articles?

Any member of the Germany WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.

5. How do I rate an article?

Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.

6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?

Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

7. 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.

8. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process; this is documented in the assessment scale.

9. Aren't the ratings subjective?

Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!

10. 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 go to the main project discussion page.

Please note that this section is transcluded from a separate requests page, which you may wish to add to your Watchlist.

Editors may self-assess against the five B-class criteria up to and including C-Class. If you have made significant improvements to an article against one or more of B-class criteria and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below, specifying which criteria you have worked on. If you feel unable to assess against one or more of the B-class criteria, please say so when posting.

1. Cologne Stadtbahn - I translated most parts of Stadtbahn Köln into English and added new sections and citations. As I don't have experience with assessing articles, I'd like someone else to take a closer look at it. Thanks Jan Lukas 22 (talk) 14:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @Jan Lukas 22 Reassessed at B-class. -- asilvering (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2. Crazy Chicken - I've added significant improvements since May 19th as well as subsequently moving the article from Moorhuhn to its official English name. Personally, I wouldn't consider it a "Start-Class" article anymore, since, except for a few game-specific release dates, it's probably about as complete as it could be without becoming too detailed. Could somebody with more experience than me please re-assess it? Thanks RayanWP (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @RayanWP I see this has been reassessed already. I also added a maint tag. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3. Hofheim am Taunus - I've significantly translated, and enlarged the page. Personally I think it shouldn't be start class any more and would qualify for C or B class, I don't have any experience with assessment, could anyone whose done this before asses the article? Crainsaw (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @Crainsaw, I've raised it to C-class and added a few maintenance tags. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4. Baldur von Schirach - Leader of the Hitler Youth and Gauleiter of Vienna. I've substantially expanded this article, relying mainly but not entirely on Oliver Rathkolb's biography. Added material, but also added citations for existing content and fixed several errors. cagliost (talk) 12:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @cagliost I've raised it to B-class, but please note that there are two minor citation needed tags near the end that need attention. If you feel like doing some more work on this one, you might consider trying to get it to Good Article status. I'd suggest breaking up some of the longer sections into subsections where you can. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Günther Franz - largely a translation of the German article, but improved and restructured where I was able. Evansknight (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @Evansknight assessed at B-class. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6. Ostsiedlung - major expansion, added more historical context, references, and added many new sections along with an expansion of existing ones. Isn't C class any more, since the majority of paragraphs are cited. Crainsaw (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   @Crainsaw I've left this at C-class, as there are still many citation-needed tags and some completely unreferenced sections. -- asilvering (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please help to clear any backlogs of unassessed articles in the following categories:

• The current status of Category:Unassessed Germany articles = 968 articles unassessed. After articles have been assessed, they are automatically removed from this category.

In true stereotypical German fashion, it's time for graphs and numbers.

Progress in the backlogs for articles not assessed by quality or important to the WikiProject.

A full log of assessment changes for the past seven days is available; unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.