Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Russia WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Russia. 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 WikiProject Russia project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Russia articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

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 Russia WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
 * 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.

Importance scale
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 Russia.

''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.''

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.
 * 1) Oleg Bezuglov The article was assessed shortly after it was created and its rating doesn't reflect the substantial expansion, revision and citation that was done afterwards. Would you be so kind to reassess it? --Fiddler11 03:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2) Yarovaya Law
 * 3) European University at Saint Petersburg has been substantially reworked. Would be nice if a worded assessment could be given on the talk page as well, so that problematic points can easily be identified.
 * You are probably thinking about a peer review, not an assessment. Assessment is merely an identification of the article's class/importance for a certain WikiProject.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 15, 2010; 15:40 (UTC)
 * 1) Reassessment request for Luzhniki disaster from C-class to B-class article. --Potorochin (talk) 01:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Reassessment requested for Genrikh Lyushkov -- Julius177 (talk) 14:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Reassessment requested for Saint Petersburg Mining Institute -- Kbog 00:11, 18 September 2012
 * 4) Reassessment requested for Voina -- Voina has become more prominent in light of the Pussy Riot case. Request upgrade from Low to Mid importance. MaxBrowne (talk) 12:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Judiciary of Russia because it has been substantially expanded from a Start-Class article, and it is listed as a Top-importance article. It is relatively complete and well organized, but details of the more obscure parts such as the lower courts, which regular people deal with, is a difficult topic for which few good English sources (and possibly even Russian) are available. I note that, in my opinion, it is as complete (if not more, e.g. administration) as the Russian language version, but has better citations. Int21h (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Battle of Prokhorovka – a B-class assessment for this article. EyeTruth (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Assessment requested for Golovnin Incident. This article has been written as part of an educational assignment and, as the course's mentoring Wikipedian, I hope it is considered useful. Thank you! Spinster (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Assessment requested for Robert Conquest and The Harvest of Sorrow. I believe the arguments in there are of great importance for Russia's history. -- Flushout1999 (talk) 13:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) The article on Grigori Rasputin has been changed substantially since 2013. Could someone take a look? Taksen (talk) 18:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) The article on National Guard of Russia has beeen expanded from its assessment in April 2016. Could someone take a look?--Mach1988 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) Yelnya Offensive -- please assess after expansion. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Boris Saltykov — please assess. Romanov loyalist (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) Georgy Khizha — please assess. Romanov loyalist (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 14) Mikhail Poltoranin — please assess. Romanov loyalist (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 15) Alexander Kazakov (politician) — please assess. Romanov loyalist (talk) 03:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 16) Reassess 1991 Russian presidential election SecretName101 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 17) Reassess Boris Yeltsin 1991 presidential campaign SecretName101 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 18) Reassess 1996 Russian presidential election SecretName101 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 19) Reassess Boris Yeltsin 1996 presidential campaign SecretName101 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 20) Assess Xerox Affair SecretName101 (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 21) Reassess Petrine Baroque Kmitchell2015 (talk) 23:48, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 22) Reassess Alfa-Bank, currently "class=Stub".  X1\ (talk) 01:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 23) Selenga is currently rated as a Stub class article. However, it has changed substantially since the articles conception, and could be classed as a Class C article now. If possible, could someone conduct a reassessment? --SakuraGinger (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 24) Embassy of Australia in Moscow has been significantly changed and I believe it to be a higher class than a stub. If someone could conduct a reassessment that would be great. Thanks. -- (talk) 9 December 2020
 * 25) Military commissariat has significantly changed and should be reassessed. I think it is higher class than a stub. If someone could reassess the article that would be perfect! Jijiathome (talk) 22:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 26) Waste management in Russia has received substantial updates (as part of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment it seems too!). If someone could re-assess the current stub-class assignment for this article, that'd be great. Cheers! SweetYears69 (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 27) Bublichki (song) just graduated from draft, needs assessment. Lkb335 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 28) Gulag: A History Has received substantial updates (went from a ~300 word count to nearly 2000. Would be grateful if anyone could reassess. Thank you! User:Kingmarly3 (talk) 5:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 29) Peterhof (Novgorod), it's a few months old, hasn't been assessed yet. JaikeV (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 30) LOT Polish Airlines Flight 232 was just accepted from draft a few days ago. Would be grateful if anyone could assess it, thanks! User:RandomGuy3114 (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC+7)

Assessment log

 * The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.