Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Elections and Referendums! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to elections and referendums. The article ratings are 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 Elections and Referendums project banner.

Frequently asked questions

 * How can I get my article rated? : Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * 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.
 * 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. Alternatively, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
 * Who can assess articles? : Any member of the Elections and Referendums WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.

If you have any other questions that are not listed here, feel free to ask them at the talk page.

How to assess articles
You can assess an article by placing the WikiProject Elections and Referendums banner on its talk page (not the article page) and using the two parameters, class (to assess the quality) and importance (to assess the priority) (if you are doubtful just leave one of these blank).

Priority assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the WikiProject Elections and Referendums project banner on its talk page:



The following values may be used for importance assessments:
 * Top
 * High
 * Mid
 * Low
 * Unknown - Any article not rated for importance.

Requesting an assessment
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.

Requested assessments


 * 2022 AJK local government elections - Looking for B or higher. Its almost complete more than 95%. M.Ashraf333 (talk) 10:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Social media in the 2020 United States presidential election - Looking for a C, have significantly expanded since receiving 'Start' class. Giraffer (munch) 14:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gazamp (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1992 Montenegrin independence referendum I've greatly expanded the article, currently assessed as Start class. --Aleksamil (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Gazamp (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 2021 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council election, hoping for an upgrade from stub --james_mc (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - A really well put together page, well done for your work on it. One suggestion just from a reader's POV: it might be useful to have a composition template similar to the one at 2021 Cornwall Council election to show more clearly the difference the election made to the overall council composition. Gazamp (talk) 13:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * George H. W. Bush 1992 presidential campaign I have created the article last month and hoping it to be assessed as a B grade article from unassessed. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ - It was done within few hours by a user.Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * 2000 Taiwanese presidential election - I have added sources by and large (and will continue to do so) over the past few days -- mainly the article was unsourced. I'd like a second opinion. Not aiming for any particular rating, though. If you have any suggestions feel free to elaborate on them in your reply. Also, I would like an opinion on whether the citation maintenance tag is still needed. Thanks! --Duonaut(talk &#124; contribs) 04:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've re-rated it at C class, but I feel like it's almost B. The referencing is largely great, but I've added citation needed templates to what doesn't seem to be attributed - I might have been a bit overzealous, but there are definitely some key parts which should have a source (it might be that chunks of text which I've tagged are referenced with one source at the end of the paragraph or something, in which case just ignore and remove the tag).
 * I also took out a few clauses which didn't seem NPOV and were unreferenced. Final point, in the table of county and city vote tallies using bolding to show the winner, rather than red text, is best (per MOS:COLOUR). If you make these few tweaks, then I don't see why it shouldn't be a B class article (and probably higher, but I don't have much experience there). This a really great page now so well done and thank you for all your work on it! Let me know if anything wasn't clear or I've missed something, Gazamp (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * 2020 United States redistricting cycle - Much better than 'Start' but I don't know where exactly to place it Phoenix1494 (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - have re-rated at C class, but again IMO it's probably almost a B. The only criterion I don't think it quite meets is the citation one: there are a few paragraphs which don't have clear references, notably the first paragraph in the 'Reapportionment' section, the Ohio paragraph in the 'Congressional redistricting plans passed by commissions', the first paragraph of the 'Court run redistricting' section (the last three states mentioned don't seem to have any citations to the fact), and the Ohio paragraph in 'State court rulings'. I'll add citation needed tags where I mean so it's easy to find. Thanks for your work on the article, and let me know if there's anything that I've missed. Thanks, Gazamp (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 2022 Marikina local elections - I have made a lot of edits that went against tradition and I would like to know if they were actually beneficial to the development of the article. EdrianJustine (talk)
 * I've rated it at C class. Overall, I think the article looks in good shape. Some parts could do with more citations in my opinion - my rule of thumb is that anything that isn't obvious to someone who is completely new to the topic needs a reference. Also, because candidates won by large margins the vote share maps are all one shade, and at least one of these would have differentiation if the vote share boundaries were increased (i.e. instead of going 40% > 50% > 60% it could go 60% > 70% > 80%) - there might be a reason this hasn't been done, in which case ignore me! As well, the results per district map is hard to read - perhaps a better format would be something more like the map at 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom. Thanks for your work on the page, it's really paying off! Best, Gazamp (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)