| Criterion | Exemplary (4 points) | Proficient (3 points) | Developing (2 points) | Needs Improvement (1 point) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Well-Written | The article is clear, well-organized, and engaging. It adheres to Wikipedia's style guidelines, avoiding jargon and unnecessary complexity. It demonstrates strong writing mechanics. | The article is mostly clear and well-structured but may have minor organizational or stylistic issues. Writing is solid but could be more engaging or polished. | The article has some clarity or organization issues. It may contain awkward phrasing, excessive jargon, or inconsistent style. | The article is poorly written, unclear, and disorganized, making it difficult to follow. It does not adhere to Wikipedia’s style guide. |
| Comprehensive | The article covers its topic fully, leaving no major gaps. It addresses all relevant aspects necessary for a Good Article. | The article is mostly comprehensive but may have minor missing details or underdeveloped sections. | The article has notable omissions or lacks depth in certain areas. Key points may be missing or inadequately explained. | The article is incomplete, failing to address major aspects of the topic. It lacks depth and detail. |
| Well-Sourced and Verifiable | The article thoroughly cites reliable sources, following Wikipedia's citation guidelines. References are properly formatted, and information is verifiable. | The article mostly cites reliable sources correctly, but some citations may be missing, improperly formatted, or unclear. | The article has inconsistent citation practices, missing key sources, or relying on questionable references. | The article has significant sourcing issues, with many claims unverified or poorly cited. It may contain original research. |
| Neutral Point of View (NPOV) | The article presents information fairly and without bias. It avoids promotional or opinionated language and follows Wikipedia’s neutrality policies. | The article is mostly neutral but may have slight bias or unbalanced coverage. Some areas may need refinement to align fully with NPOV. | The article contains noticeable bias, promotional language, or one-sided coverage. It does not fully adhere to Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines. | The article is highly biased, opinionated, or promotional, violating Wikipedia’s neutrality standards. |
| Stable and Well-Maintained | The article is stable, meaning it is not frequently edited in a disruptive manner. It is well-maintained with few issues. | The article is mostly stable but may have minor inconsistencies due to recent edits. | The article has some instability, with frequent changes or unresolved disputes. | The article is highly unstable, with ongoing edit wars, vandalism, or major inconsistencies. |
| Well-Illustrated (if applicable) | The article includes relevant images that enhance understanding. Images are properly formatted, captioned, and follow copyright guidelines. | The article contains relevant images but may lack proper formatting, captions, or attribution. | The article includes images, but they are of low quality, poorly formatted, or lack necessary attribution. | The article lacks relevant images, or included images violate copyright policies. |
| Adherence to Wikipedia Policies | The article fully complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines, including verifiability, notability, and avoiding original research. | The article mostly follows Wikipedia’s policies, with minor inconsistencies. | The article has notable policy violations that need correction before meeting Wikipedia standards. | The article significantly violates Wikipedia’s core policies, requiring major revision. |
Total Score: ____ / 28
- A (26-28 points): The article meets or exceeds Good Article standards.
- B (22-25 points): The article is strong but needs some refinements to reach Good Article quality.
- C (18-21 points): The article is developing but has gaps that prevent it from achieving Good Article status.
- D (14-17 points): The article has significant weaknesses and requires major revision.
- F (Below 14 points): The article does not meet basic Good Article criteria and requires extensive work.