Contents

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States History/Assessment

United States History articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	3	9	10	29		21	72
FL	2		1	5			8
FM					44		44
A			1	1			2
GA	8	21	51	116		35	231
B	25	111	142	292		170	740
C	18	139	240	734		389	1,520
Start	4	50	182	934		659	1,829
Stub		1	70	443		197	711
List	2	5	251	220		252	730
Category			1		4,100		4,101
Disambig					11		11
File					36		36
Project					10		10
Redirect	1	2		26	936		965
Template			1	1	153		155
Other				11	35		46
Assessed	63	338	950	2,812	5,325	1,723	11,211
Unassessed			1	10		86	97
Total	63	338	951	2,822	5,325	1,809	11,308
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 22,209			Ω = 4.35

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject United States History! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's United States History articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

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

How do I add an article to the WikiProject?

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

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of the United States History WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.

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.

Where can I get more comments about my article?

The Status requester can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.

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.

Aren't the ratings subjective?

Yes, they are (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!

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.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject United States History}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject United States History|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 United States History articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class United States History articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class United States History articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class United States History articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class United States History articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class United States History articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class United States History articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class United States History articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class United States History articles)		List

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

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class United States History articles)		Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class United States History articles)		Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class United States History articles)		Draft
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class United States History articles)		FM
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class United States History articles)		File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class United States History articles)		Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class United States History articles)		Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class United States History articles)		Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class United States History articles)		Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class United States History articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed United States History articles)		???

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject United States History}} 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):

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.	Daniel Boone (as of March 28, 2011)
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 plantations in West Virginia
FM	Pictures that have attained featured picture status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. More detailed criteria Afeatured picture: Is of a high technical standard. It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance. It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here. Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements. Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed.[1] Is of high resolution. It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimumof1500 pixels in width and height (1500×1500px); larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred. Further information on image size can be found here. Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration. Note that vector graphicsinSVG format omit any requirement for any pixel count. Animations and video may be somewhat smaller. Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative. A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide. commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:File copyright tags. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. The image is used in one or more articles.[2] It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image. A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.[3] Isverifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English. A complete file description: Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable. Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other medium. Geotagging photographs of identifiable places is encouraged. This entails providing the coordinates of where the camera was when the medium was recorded to an appropriate degree of precision no less than ~10 km² (see Commons:Geocoding, or Template:Coord if the image is hosted on the English Wikipedia). States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc). It is suggested that additional relevant information that becomes known during the course of the nomination be subsequently included in the file description. May include languages other than English but there must be an English version available that meets this criterion. The file name may be in a language other than English. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive. Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text. Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable. Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.	The page contains a featured image, sound clip or other media-related content.	Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited.	File:SanFrancisco1851a.jpg
A	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help.	American Civil War (as of March 24, 2011)
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.	Constitutional Convention (United States) (as of March 19, 2011)
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.	Reconstruction Era of the United States (as of March 25, 2011)
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.	Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
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.	Historiography of the United States (as of February 11, 2011)
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.	Virginia Slave Codes of 1705 (as of January 18, 2011)
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 Kentucky women in the civil rights era
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:History of the United States
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.	Civil war (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:20080310 Soldiers and Sailors edit.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:American Civil War
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 United States History
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.	History of Lesbianism in the United States
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:Events leading to US Civil War
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.	N/A

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 U.S. history.

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.

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

History of Denver - I've made significant changes to the article over the last few months and would like to get it assessed. Thank you, Killian441 (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Student_Nonviolent_Coordinating_Committee - Others have greatly expanded it. I proposed for A-Class, independent evaluations needed here.--Carwil (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

1. Corvus coronoides (talk · contribs)
2. Dthomsen8 (talk · contribs)

• Imperial presidency (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Mexican Border War (1910–1919) renamed to Mexican Border War.

• Johnston Lykins (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-ClasstoC-Class. (rev · t)
• Office of Public Diplomacy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-ClasstoC-Class. (rev · t)
• Slooper (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-ClasstoC-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:1981 controversies in the United States (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:1982 controversies in the United States (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Mexican Border War (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Draft:1882 Foundation (talk) removed.

• Category:1983 controversies in the United States (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:1984 controversies in the United States (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• 2015 United States H5N2 outbreak (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
• Anson Call House (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Chinese-American history by location (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Slooper (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Third-party and independent candidates for the 2016 United States presidential election (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)

• Harry Lott (politician) renamed to Harry Lott.

• Jews in the civil rights movement (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-ClasstoGA-Class. (rev · t)

• Harry Lott (American politician) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Mayflower Compact signatories (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

• Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-ClasstoC-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Low-ClasstoMid-Class. (rev · t)

• Albert S. Coe (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• John Philip De Haas (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Native American policy of the Richard Nixon administration (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Richard Lawrence (failed assassin) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Taxa by American author (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally renamed to Attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
• ONE, Inc. renamed to One Institute.

• Attempted assassination of Donald Trump (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• One Institute (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Randall B. Woods (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:Geographic history of the United States by state (talk) removed.

• Draft:Nathaniel Coe renamed to Nathaniel Coe.

• Age and health concerns of Joe Biden (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-ClasstoC-Class. (rev · t)
• Robert J. Ryan Sr. (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-ClasstoC-Class. (rev · t)

• 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• File:Shooting of Donald Trump.webp (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as File-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• The Strip (book) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Draft:Confederate Strategy Conference - May 1863 (talk) removed.