This sub-project for the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team seeks to identify quality Wikipedia articles and key articles using information from individual WikiProjects (WPs). This approach taps into local knowledge of more specialist corners of Wikipedia and brings the benefit of some element of peer review by subject experts.

There are four main areas of work:

1. The bot-supported assessment scheme serves as a valuable tool for WikiProjects while supplying this project with quality and importance information from those WikiProjects. Our role is now mainly support & guidance.
2. We are now locating subject areas that need better coverage, and assisting with assessment and project launches (in collaboration with WP:COUNCIL). Currently our most active area of activity.
3. A new bot assisted article selection, currently being tested, will evaluate information from the WikiProjects in combination with external metrics to produce a selection of articles that are both important and of acceptable quality.
4. Manual article assessment tables (See /Obsolete sections): Since the bot became widely established, these tables are much less used, but some maintenance is still needed. MartinBotII will be using information from these tables as well as the WP1.0 Bot tables.

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

Please join us! Sign below:

• SBanerjee (talk · contribs)
• Om.Tem (talk · contribs)
• Walkerma (talk · contribs)
• Shanel (talk · contribs)
• Gflores (talk · contribs)
• Titoxd (talk · contribs)
• Mirlen (talk · contribs)
• MilkMiruku (talk · contribs)
• Badbilltucker (talk · contribs)
• Reswik (talk · contribs)
• Warlordjohncarter (talk · contribs)
• Greeves (talk · contribs)
• Lenoxus (talk · contribs)
• GrooveDog (talk · contribs)
• Pknkly (talk · contribs)
• Adavis444 (talk · contribs)
• TheLastAmigo (talk · contribs)
• OrenBochman (talk · contribs)
• Smuckola (talk · contribs)
• Democratics (talk · contribs)
• SIRavecavec (talk · contribs)
• Sj (talk · contribs)

WikiProjects are encouraged to use WP 1.0 bot and the assessment scheme to coordinate project activities in compiling lists of articles and ranking them by quality and (if desired) priority (also called importance). Most projects coordinate this work using a task force/department such as this, or an assessment page such as this. People conducting assessments are encouraged to use Pyrospirit's tool (choose metadata.js on User:Pyrospirit/scripts).

Quality assessments are fairly standard across all projects, but priority/importance are evaluated relative to the project's own priorities. If desired, projects can make small adjustments to these schemes for internal use (for example, Mathematics records "B+" grades internally), but these will not be read by the bot. In the quality scheme, note that the "GA" level is not an internal assessment but rather an external tag – all GAs can be assessed as either A or B - and so a few projects choose not to use the GA level. Priority/importance can be a divisive issue in some subject areas, and may need to be handled carefully when established. Projects may choose to tailor their importance criteria to suit the specifics of their subject, to assess the priority of only a few articles, or to not assess importance at all.

This is currently the main focus of active work by the WVWP project. We are seeking to identify those areas that currently receive scant coverage from WikiProject oversight, to ensure that major topics in those areas are adequately assessed and included in our releases. In collaboration with WP:COUNCIL, we also hope to assist in establishing WikiProjects in those areas if needed.

• In cases where we find active projects but little or no assessments, we may politely offer guidance and help to establish assessment activities.
• In cases where we find inactive projects in poorly covered subject areas, we may try to re-activate those projects and energize them through assessment activities.
• In subject areas where there is a clear need for a WikiProject, we may try to identify editors who could work in such areas, then we would offer support (with help from the WikiProject Council) in establishing projects and the associated assessments.

The categories containing almost all orphans that need WikiProjects can be found at Category:Unassessed articles and Category:Stub-Class articles. Higher-class assessed articles without a WikiProject can be found in similarly named categories.

Work has now begun developing a bot-assisted scheme for article selection. VeblenBot or its successor will be used to scan the information from WikiProjects and combine this with "Google-type" algorithms that rank article importance to produce a list of articles that meet our criteria for inclusion for offline release versions. Manual article selection will still be available, but this is expected to provide only a small proportion of the articles.

We are still developing suitable algorithms, but the principles have been agreed on. In order to be selected, an article will need to achieve above a specified "score". Part of this score will come from the quality assessment provided by the projects. The other part of the score will come from the importance as judged by at least some of the following parameters:

• Importance of the article from manual WikiProject assessments
• Links into the article – more links-in means more important. It is intended to weigh these links-in based in turn on their importance.
• Reader "hits". These data have become available recently, and used for compiling tables such as the "Top 100". Clearly articles that are popular should be considered important, though (as the Top 100 shows) this should not be the only parameter used.
• Equivalent articles in other languages (interwikis). Clearly an article that is well represented in many other language Wikipedias is important. This will also help us obtain something closer to a World-Wide view.

• Obsolete sections