Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Philosophy WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Philosophy related 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the Philosophy project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Philosophy articles by quality and Category:Philosophy articles by importance.

Frequently asked questions

 * 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 Philosophy WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
 * 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. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
 * Aren't the ratings subjective? : Yes, they are, 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!

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

Quality assessments
After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Philosophy articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the Philosophy project banner on its talk page:



The following values may be used for importance assessments:
 * Top - The article is about one of the core topics of philosophy. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Philosophy articles
 * High - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of philosophy. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Philosophy articles
 * Mid - The article is about a topic within the philosophy field that may or may not be commonly known outside the philosophy community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Philosophy articles
 * Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the philosophy field and is not generally common knowledge outside the community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Philosophy articles
 * Unknown - Any article which has not yet been assessed on the importance scale is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance Philosophy articles.

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 at the bottom below.


 * On Bullshit article, the stub tag was removed but an updated assessment has not been given. Could someone please assess the article. 451blue (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Appeal to the stone article, the stub tag has been removed but major changes have been made on this article. Could someone please assess this article? Thank you! Covidking (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Empirical limits in science article, the stub tag was removed and changes have been made to the article, can someone assess please? Airstarfish (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has been revised with extensive reference to the scholarly literature. I don't know what class it should be, but it is certainly better than start-class. Suggestions for further improvement very much welcome. Many thanks! PatrickJWelsh (talk) 18:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that B-class makes sense, there doesn't seem to be anything important missing and it looks well cited.(In the interests of full disclosure I've contributed a small bit to this article but I feel comfortable assessing it as B-class as I have not worked on the majority of it. I would not be eligible to perform a good article review though were it nominated for that). &#32;- car chasm (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Gerard Heymans: I expanded this article and added references. I think it is no longer a stub article.
 * Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire has been revised. I would like to see a reassessment of its importance. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Colin Murray Turbayne has been revised with additional credit references to scholarly articles, additional text regarding his biographical history and publications, photograph, and External links. The article is currently rated as a "Start" as of ten years ago but seem to have progressed further along and should be reassessed in light of these improvements since he is an internationally recognized scholar on the works of George Berkeley (whenever you have time). Many thanks and Happy Editing!160.72.80.178 (talk) 23:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL
 * I think it meets all the B-class criteria, and it seems reasonably complete and well referenced. Nice work! &#32;- car chasm (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ciao Car Chasm --many thanks for your speedy assessment and kind compliments. It was a pleasure to assist in the development of this biography about one of my mentors at the University of Rochester. Turbayne's tireless research into the use and abuse of metaphorical epistemological constructs within ordinary language throughout the modern world in the 20th century gives new meaning to both the ancient philosophical adage from Lau-Tzu's ancient work the Tao Te Ching - To know that you do not know is best -- to think that you know when you do not know is a disease. Recognizing this disease as a disease is to be free of it, as well, of course, as the Socratic paradox: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.(Plato, Apology 22d), as well as Joseph Campbell's investigations into the evolution of mythology in his book The Masks of God It was a pleasure collaborating with you. Happy editing & Meliora! 160.72.80.178 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)NHPL
 * I have done some work on the article about Heidegger's Black Notebooks, and I'm wondering if it has yet escalated to the dizzy height of "Start" from Stub? I recognise that it is pretty much a backwater in the big scheme of things, but if anyone has a moment ... ? It is also still in need of much care and attention, but my name is featuring on the history list more than I am comfortable with, so I'm going to vacate the scene, so to speak, for a while. Dinkenfunkle 05:27, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it does, it's certainly longer than a normal stub, and it cites at least one reliable secondary source, so I've marked it start-class. Nice work! &#32;- car chasm (talk) 15:35, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dinkenfunkle 23:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Heidegger_Gesamtausgabe (collected works) after my success on the last item ... I've gone all WP:Bold and done some major copy-edits to this (EDIT: unrated list-rated) article, and I'm wondering if somebody could have a look, either to provide a rating/comment, or just to give me some feed back. I'm particulary wondering if the 'wall of text' that is the list of works broken up by section and volume is worth keeping at all? Thanks in advance Dinkenfunkle 23:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi! I have been working on improving Paradox of tolerance. It was initially rated as C class and I would appreciate some external input on whether or not the improvements should bump it up a grade or two. Ddevault (talk) 13:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Lewis White Beck Ciao fellow editors:this article is currently assessed as a "Stub" but can probably be reassessed to at least a C-Class (hopefully)as a result of the introduction of additional content, wikified sections, publications and references with an external image box of Professor Beck lecturing to his students. Enjoy and thanks for the review! 160.72.81.86 (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)GCL