Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy/Article ratings

How do articles get rated?

Some time ago, I put a lot of time and effort into expanding and improving the article for Bart Bok. Today I looked at its Talk page, and I see that it has only been rated "Start" class. This surprised and humbled me; obviously I still have a great deal to learn about what makes for an acceptable article. Can somebody please point me to somewhere I can learn about how this rating system works, and especially what might be helpful to make my next article more worthy of this esteemed encyclopedia? --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd echo this question: I too would like to know how articles are rated. I glanced at the table of article ratings to find important but low-quality articles and found that many are now quite substantial but haven't been rated in many years. It would be a useful exercise for newcomers to find work and I'm willing to contribute if someone can specify how it's done. Warrickball (talk) 09:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz, Warrickball, wikiproject article ratings are informal. If you see an article that has been improved then go ahead and BOLDly help out and upgrade the rating. If you see an unrated article, go ahead an add a rating. Alsee (talk) 00:05, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, @Alsee:. I'm not sure that I can realistically evaluate my own work. Is it appropriate for me to upgrade the rating on an article that I wrote or improved myself? It sounds like somebody else should do that, to avoid deluding myself (because once I have finished work on an article, I generally think it is the greatest advance in writing since the invention of pen and paper!)--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gronk Oz, ah, yes, rating one's own work should be avoided. chuckle. I think I lost sight of that detail in your original comment.

P.S. for Warrickball, there's more detail on rating at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Astronomy/Importance_ratings#Quality_scale. Be sure to click [show] on the More detailed criteria. Alsee (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, but when I'm rating an astronomy article I usually just give it a quick eyeball check; if the body is longer than 10 sentences and is referenced with no warning tags, it should usually get a minimum of a start rating. If there is more substantial content but most is only weakly cited, I'll bump it up to a 'C'. A thorough, decent quality article with plenty of cites gets a 'B'. Beyond that, you can use the WP:GAN process for a more detailed evaluation. Praemonitus (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]