Energy articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	1	6	3			11
FL			1	2			3
A				1			1
GA	5	6	26	59			96
B	21	97	187	386		2	693
C	35	228	474	1,574		488	2,799
Start	1	170	757	5,760		1,586	8,274
Stub	1	6	133	3,928		1,665	5,733
List	1	44	82	318		89	534
Category					7,499		7,499
Disambig					36		36
File					79		79
Portal					153		153
Project					15		15
Template					279		279
NA		38	48	399	628		1,113
Other					129		129
Assessed	65	590	1,714	12,430	8,818	3,830	27,447
Unassessed						541	541
Total	65	590	1,714	12,430	8,818	4,371	27,988
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 89,236			Ω = 5.07

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

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 Energy 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.

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Energy}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Energy
|class=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class energy articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class energy articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class energy articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class energy articles)
• C (adds articles to Category:C-Class energy articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class energy articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class energy articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article energy pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed energy articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

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: A featured 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 plagiarism or too-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.	Cleopatra (as of June 2018)
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 and includes at minimum eight items; 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 formatting 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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018)
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.	Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014)
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 A good 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 violations or plagiarism. 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.	Everybody Wants to Rule the World (as of October 2025)
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.	Psychology (as of January 2024)
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.	Wing (as of June 2018)
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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.	Yap Day (as of March 2026)
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.	Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set 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 literary movements

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.

• Done. Thorium Energy Alliance Did significant cleanup and agree still with a Start class rating, but the importance (currently high-importance) rating of this advocacy organization should be reassessed. H2so4aq (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. TRISO fuel Turned a former redirect into a proper article; would appreciate assessment. Thanks! H2so4aq (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. Organic nuclear reactor Major rewrite, and has not been assessed since article creation. H2so4aq (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
• Heterojunction solar cell Has not been assessed since article was first approved through AfC. Significant changes made since, hoping for some feedback. Thanks 電放三葉 (RadioTrefoil) (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• China Fusion Engineering Test Reactor-Major edits made , requesting reassessment. Thank you. TechnicolourKaleidoscope (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Champion Oil Field - Request Assessment. Thank you.
• Polymer-based battery - Substantially transformed article from a little blurb to a significant overview of this emerging class of batteries. Ala127
• Worldwide energy supply - Would like to know what to do to improve further. Rwbest (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Renewable Energy in Costa Rica - the article was substantially improved, including regulatory framework of the government of Costa Rica and references related to the state of the art in solar, geothermal and hydroelectricity projects in the country. I would like some feedback! Ceab.ico
• Energy policy of the European Union - the article is now hopelessly outdated, no longer deserves a B rating Gor
• Energy Technology Perspectives - Major rewrite, omited external source links, changed text to not appear as an advertisement.
• Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant - Major rewrite with new sources. Would like to know what to do to improve further. Apercu
• SG Biofuels - Improved from stub
• 2009 Russia–Ukraine gas dispute - Substantially reworked. Further suggestions and constructive criticism welcome.LokiiT (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Statoil Fuel & Retail - Article about a new company (spin-off from existing Fortune 50 company). Bifrost2 (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Dynamic tidal power - Page is not a stub anymore. Should be class B by now. Also, considering heavy emphasis by The Netherlands, European Commission and Chinese government, importance level should be raised to High or even Top. Will make further additions in coming weeks, to reflect recent developments. Keen to have an outside opinion. UNguyinChina
• Nationalization of oil supplies - Significantly improved and expanded by a policy class project last month. Is it B yet? 24.216.225.123 (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Aera Energy LLC - I've improved the citations. --Cmntgmry (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Dark Energy - Doesnt have an assesment please assess and give further suggestions to improve the article Naveed (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Dilbit - Another person removed the stub category, which is probably correct given recent changes. As I made a number of the substantive and format changes, I probably should not perform the re-assessment. --Rpclod (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Green Museum - A class worked on this article this semester, adding significant content. Review welcome! Sleuthwood (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant - Significant additions have been made to this article, would love comments on how to improve the article more.Castroby (talk) 14:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Solar cell efficiency - Made significant changes to article. Would like some feedback.Rob Hurt (talk) 02:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Systems for Nuclear Auxiliary Power - Article needs an initial assessment to determine what needs to be done to improve it.Graham1973 (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Thunder Bay Generating Station - Improved from stub, references added

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.

• Draft:Jackery renamed to Jackery.

• WA Parish Generating Station (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

• Minister of Energy (Denmark) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Value Creed (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Draft:BF3A (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Gull New Zealand (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Plasma gasification commercialization (talk) removed.

• Draft:Green Hydrogen as a Replacement of Fossil Fuels (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Petroleum exploration in Pakistan (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Sieyuan Electric (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Olduvai theory (talk) removed.

• List of power stations in Washington, D.C. renamed to List of power stations in Washington, D.C..

• Draft:Trench Group (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Draft:A.E. "Dal" Grauer renamed to A.E. "Dal" Grauer.
• Metcalf sniper attack renamed to 2013 Metcalf sniper attack.

• 2013 Metcalf sniper attack (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Dal Grauer (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

• Draft:Barka Joda Sajou (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Canadian Energy Regulator renamed to Canada Energy Regulator.

• Dam (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to GA-Class. (rev · t)
• Home Energy Saver (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

• Canada Energy Regulator (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Magallanes Renovables (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Volgograd refinery (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:Biofuel in Malaysia (talk) removed.
• CC-HOD (talk) removed.
• Draft:Carbon Capture and Storage in the Santos Basin (Petrobras) (talk) removed.
• Category:Geothermal energy in Australia (talk) removed.
• Category:Geothermal energy in Portugal (talk) removed.
• Category:Geothermal energy in Romania (talk) removed.
• Majid Jafar (talk) removed.

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

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.