Contents

Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Assessment

WikiProject Comics v t e
Home	Assessments	Cleanup	Discussion	Improvements	Notice board	Help	Popular pages	Workgroups
Article alerts · Copyright · Getting Involved · Manual of Style · Naming conventions · Recognized content · References · Statistics · Templates · Userbox

WikiProject Comics
Information
Main page Discussion Cleanup listing Getting Involved Notice Board Outstanding content Popular pages Recognized content
Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, Contents Threads older than 20 days may be archived by MiszaBot II.
Departments Assessments ⇒ B-Class FAQ Peer review Outreach
Project organization Article alerts Deletion sorting Improvements Participants Project banner Project category Stubs To-do list
Resources Copyright Manual of Style Naming conventions References Maintenance Templates
Task forces British talk Batman talk Canadian talk Comic book films talk Strips talk Creators talk DC Comics talk European talk Marvel talk Spider-Man talk Superman talk United States talk Webcomics talk World comics talk
Comics Portal
v t e

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Comics! Here's what you need to know:

• Every article in this project should have a quality rating and an importance rating. This helps editors track progress and find things that need work.
• Ratings are stored on the talk page of the article in question.
• This page lists the rating levels and what they mean.
• Anyone can update a rating, except to give some high ratings like "good article" – these have more formal processes.
• If you have worked on an article and would like someone to look at its rating, make a request on this page, or on Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Peer review. And if you want to help review other people's articles, see the list below or to to the Peer Review page.
• This page also has some tools for finding incorrectly-assessed articles and for generating lists of articles by rating.

Each article in this project should have a quality rating and an importance rating. The quality rating is an estimate of how good the article is at describing its subject, looking at whether it covers the subject thoroughly, whether it is sourced by reliable sources, and so on. The importance rating is an estimate of how important the article is to the project, that is, how many readers might be interested and how core it is to understanding the subject of comics.

The ratings for each page appear on its Talk page in the {{WikiProject Comics}} project banner. This allows automatic analysis in tools like the WP 1.0 tool and places articles in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Comics articles by quality and Category:Comics articles by importance.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

See also the general assessment FAQ

1. What is the purpose of rating articles by quality? Monitoring quality allows the project to prioritize work on articles that need the most attention. It also lets the project know which could be promoted, for example, which articles could be worthy of being a featured article.
2. Who can assess articles? Any member of WikiProject Comics 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.
3. Can I assess an article I worked on? You can, as any member of the project can rank an article. However, it's best to get an independent view if you can. Consider submitting it for assessment on this page; if you don't get a reply from another editor then rank it yourself.
4. What's the technical process for ranking an article? Go to the article's Talk page, and inside the {{WikiProject Comics}} template, add "|class=xxx", where "xxx" is your ranking. The page on the template has more details.
5. How do I decide what rating an article is? 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. How can I ask for an article to be assessed? You can request an assessment lower down on this page. However, be aware that this assessment process has been largely inactive for some time, so you may not get a response. Alternatively, you can try the project's peer review department. If you aren't getting a response in either place, or if there is disagreement, you may want to take it to Wikipedia's general peer review.
7. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, reviewers may not have time to leave detailed comments. 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 have a number of options. You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, start a discussion on the article's talk page, or 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. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.
11. Is this department still active? As of November 2020, there is a backlog of assessment requests dating back to March 2019. As such, it does appear that the assessment department is mostly, if not completely, inactive. Remember, anyone can take on an assessment request so please feel free to participate.
12. What if I have a question not listed here? If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

List of possible quality ratings[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Comics}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject Comics|class=???}}

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

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

Quality scale[edit]

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: Afeatured 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 plagiarismortoo-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.	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	Tintin in Tibet
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list 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; 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.	Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	List of Smallville episodes
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria Agood 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 violationsorplagiarism. 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.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	Alex Raymond
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Garfield
C	The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems.	2000 AD (comics)
Start	An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following: A useful picture or graphic 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	Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.	Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.	Q Force
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.	Action Girl Comics
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone listorset index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.	There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.	Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	List of comic books
Category	Any category falls under this class.	Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area.	Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized.	Category:Comics stubs
Disambig	Any disambiguation page falls under this class.	The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title.	Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title.	DC Universe (disambiguation)
File	Any page in the file namespace falls under this class.	The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content.	Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited.	File:John Byrne.JPG
Portal	Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class.	Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics.	Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date.	Portal:Comics
Project	All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class.	Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development.	Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project.	Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Marvel Comics work group
Redirect	Any redirect falls under this class.	The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location.	Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles.	Martha Kent
Template	Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes.	Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles.	Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.	Template:WikiProject Comics
NA	Any non-article page that fits no other classification.	The page contains no article content.	Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified.	Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Templates

These criteria apply to general-content articles. The manual of Style guide provides additional sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.

Each comics-related article has its assessment included within the {{WikiProject Comics}} template, such as {{WikiProject Comics|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Comics articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

List of requests for quality assessment[edit]

If you want an article's quality rating assessed or reassessed, especially if it's one you worked on, please add it to the list below.

• Reviewers may or may not leave feedback on why they gave an article a certain rating, depending on time. If you want a full review of an article, use the WP:COMICS peer review process or the regular peer review process.
• If you want to discuss an article's quality or how to improve it, it's best to do this on the article's talk page.
• Seeking an A-class rating? We suggest you submit it for a Peer Review to allow us more time to respond and review. Be sure to first read what qualifies as an A rating before doing so though.
• If you have a problem with getting an assessment, want to talk about a group of articles at once, or to discuss how ratings are done, ask on this project's Talk page.

If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> and note your rating here so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Past assessments are located on this page. If you delete a striked-through article from the list, please remember to put it in the archive.

Add new requests at the bottom.

1. Hyperion (comics) - extensively reformatted, trimmed a lot of information. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Squadron Supreme - It hasn't been evaluated since 2007, as far as I can tell? It has changed so much since 2007. Namenamenamenamename (talk) 02:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. Galactus - Page has not been assessed in some time and I don't believe the indicated disqualification against B status (referencing and citation criterion not met) applies.Mobb One (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
   • As it's been over 3 years with no reply and the article itself has had even more citations and references added since the time I first requested the re-assessment, I have reranked this article myself, calling it B-class. Mobb One (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aventuras en el mundo del futuro - hoping a rewrite brings it up to C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
   • As it's been over a year with no reply, I have reranked this article myself, calling it C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Small Saves - since its last assessment, there has been a detailed, independent article published that talks about the comic and the artist in more detail than any previous citation. I've incorporated it in, and gone over the article generally. I think this gets it to a C-class (substantial but is still missing important content) but not further, because there is enough information but there is a lack of citations for the description of the comic's subject matter. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
   • As it's been over a year with no reply, I have reranked this article myself, calling it C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Piled Higher and Deeper - I've substantially reworked this, including finding over half a dozen new secondary sources and better using the existing ones, restructuring the article, and separating primary sources (story notes) and secondary sources (references). It's currently Start-class, but I think it's at least C-class and might be up to B-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
   • As it's been over a year with no reply, I have reranked this article myself, calling it C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Chris Crosby (comics) Substantially rewritten, with an aim to make it up-to-date and to ensure material is properly sourced. I've added a fair amount more information, but I'm concerned it still relies heavily on sources that may not be considered reliable. In any case I think it does reach C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
   • It's been three months without a reply to this request, so I have reranked the quality of the article myself. I think that the article meets the definition of C-class - "The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Cheshire Crossing I suspect this can't make a B grade with a large plot section that is entirely unsourced. But having changed a lot I think it could do with an independent review. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9. Allie Brosh – Revisited after her new book generated more media coverage. I think this reaches B-class now; it is well sourced and covers the subject thoroughly. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. Christopher Hastings The article missed a lot of his work, and didn't describe (what is probably) his most well-known work in much detail. I think this is C-class now. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been three months without a reply to this request, so I have reranked the quality of the article myself. I think that the article meets the definition of C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Brad Neely – Details are scant on his comic work, but I think the article overall does reach C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been three months without a reply to this request, so I have reranked the quality of the article myself. I think that the article meets the definition of C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Jerry Holkins – Updated, including with a highly detailed interview by a museum's oral history department. Still lacking a lot of detail though. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's been more than three months without a reply to this request, so I have reranked the quality of the article myself. I think that the article meets the definition of C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Raina Telgemeier While this still needs work, the latest version replaces a lot of primary sources with secondary ones, removes unsourced material from a BLP, updates the article to 2020, and restructures it especially in the reception section. Currently it's a Start; I think it's at least a C. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sluggy Freelance – This article was a classic decade-old webcomic article, with piles of unsourced, highly-detailed, glowing material. The current version has far more secondary sources, presents a more balanced view of the comic, cuts down the fancruft, and marks what remains as needing sources. I think this is a C-class now, but probably no further. HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
15. The Oatmeal I think this is B-class now. HenryCrun15 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
16. Girly - Possibly makes C-class? HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
17. Zach Weinersmith I believe this meets the criteria for B-class now as it thoroughly covers the subject with good sources. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
18. Sarah's Scribbles – short, but covers the topic thoroughly. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19. Nathan W. Pyle HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
20. One-shot (comics) – Currently a Stub Class, but I have improved it and updated some information. Please re-assess it and I will keep working, thank you. SCP-0113 Lantern (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi there! I have rated this as a Start-class, though it is close to C-class. I have given a more detailed review on the talk page for the article. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
21. Critical Role: Vox Machina Origins – Created in September 2020 & needs assessment. I think it's higher than Start-class. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have rated this a B-class article, and added suggestions for improvement to its talk page. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
22. Ryan North Currently start, I propose it is C-class now. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
23. The Perry Bible Fellowship - Hoping to move from Start to C. HenryCrun15 (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
24. Scary Go Round – complete rewrite, going back to all secondary sources and finding new ones. Is start, I think it is C now. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
25. Loss (comic) – short but thoroughly covers the subject. Propose it is B-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
26. Cyanide & Happiness This was a fun one to work on and I think it is B-class now. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
27. Emily Carroll – Gives good enough coverage of the subject to be C-class. HenryCrun15 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
28. 8-Bit Theater – I did a massive rewrite of this article, based on research and finding previously unincluded articles, to replace the classic decade-old webcomic article. I am not confident that it makes B-class but I would appreciate a review. HenryCrun15 (talk) 08:03, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
29. Tapas (website) hoping to move from C to B. HenryCrun15 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
30. Carol Danvers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - New character article. IronManCap (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
31. Peter Quill (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - New character article. IronManCap (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
32. Gamora (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - New character article. IronManCap (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
33. Rocket (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - New character article. IronManCap (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
34. Nebula (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - New character article, also noticed previous articles haven't been striked. IronManCap (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
35. Avengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) - New high importance article, maybe B or C? IronManCap (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
36. Free Comic Book Day – Seeking GAN reviewer, hoping to promote before the 20th edition of the event on 7 May. Reidgreg (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
37. Pasqual Ferry – Absolutely still a work in progress, but added some references, tidied dead links and added more recent works. LavaLampBamboo (talk) 09:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
38. Sinfest - Due to the lack of sources documenting the change in the comic, I believe that the quality of the article has dropped dramatically, and may no longer be a C class article. 174.53.199.21 (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
39. List of boats in The Adventures of Tintin – came across this article while patrolling the new pages feed and added the European comics work group template to its talk page. I notice it's a full translation of an article that's GA-class on the French Wikipedia, and I think it may be worth B-class or better here but I have no comics knowledge so I'm leaving it to the attention of this WikiProject. Dan • ✉ 05:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently asked questions[edit]

See also the general assessment FAQ

1. What is the purpose of rating articles by importance? Marking importance allows the project to prioritize work on articles that are key to the project's area.
2. Who can assess articles? Any member of WikiProject Comics is free to add or change the importance 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.
3. Can I rank or re-rank an article I worked on? You can, as any member of the project can rank an article. However, it's best to get an independent view if you can. Consider submitting it for assessment below; if you don't get a reply from another editor then rank it yourself.
4. How do I decide the importance of an article? See the importance scale below to help you make your decision.
5. What if I don't agree with a rating? You can list it below, discuss it on the article's Talk page, or ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
6. Aren't the ratings subjective? Yes, they are somewhat subjective (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
7. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.
8. What if I have a question not listed here? If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Importance scale[edit]

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Comics.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

List of requests for importance assessment[edit]

If you want an article's importance rating assessed or reassessed, especially if it's one you worked on, please add it to the list below.

• Reviewers may or may not leave feedback on why they gave an article a certain rating, depending on time.
• If you have a problem with getting an assessment, want to talk about a group of articles at once, or to discuss how ratings are done, ask on this project's Talk page.

If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> and note your rating here so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Past assessments are located on this page. If you delete a striked-through article from the list, please remember to put it in the archive.

Add new requests at the bottom.

1. Raina Telgemeier – Given that her works have sold at least 18 million copies and she has won so many awards, I think this article is at least of Mid importance. HenryCrun15 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are some automatic systems that try to identify incorrectly assessed pages. Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Comics articles and Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Comics articles output lists of these pages. Reasons for this include:

• Invoked review parameter when the associated subpage doesn't exist, or missing review parameter it when it does
• Invalid combination of review status and assessment class
• Link to a portal subpage that doesn't exist
• Use of a deprecated parameter (e.g. portal)
• Assessed as NA-importance when the page is in the article namespace
  • Disambig and Redirect articles should be rated as No for importance
• Assessed as No-importance when the page is not in the article namespace
  • Templates, Categories, Images and Portals should be rated as NA for importance
• Assessed as having an importance when the page is not in the article namespace
• Use of a deprecated parameter (e.g. image)
  • Future class has been deprecated

As of 14 July 2024, there are 21,935 articles within the scope of WikiProject Comics, of which 79 are featured. This makes up 0.33% of the articles on Wikipedia and 0.73% of featured articles and lists. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 58,051 pages in the project.

Comics article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Listing, Log & Stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot)

Daily log of status changes

Current Statistics

Comics articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low Bottom NA ??? Total FA 2 8 17 28 55 FL 3 19 1 23 GA 3 20 91 236 69 3 1 423 B 16 67 128 285 46 11 553 C 30 176 672 2,351 248 1 63 3,541 Start 5 124 970 9,215 828 3 207 11,352 Stub 1 5 171 3,874 546 118 4,715 List 10 168 706 104 254 28 1,270 Draft 2 1 73 14 81 171 Category 6,289 6,289 Disambig 1 117 118 File 5 1 13,720 13,726 Portal 550 550 Project 1 166 167 Redirect 2 35 2,020 347 11,338 13,742 Template 14 817 831 NA 3 1 4 Assessed 57 414 2,256 18,831 2,204 33,340 428 57,530 Unassessed 16 2 4 410 432 Total 57 414 2,256 18,847 2,206 33,344 838 57,962 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 101,719 Ω = 4.93

The log has now grown too large to transclude. Please see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Comics articles by quality log for full details.