This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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. |
Articles that need... assessment (2,988) (8,472) • attention (562) • creation • infoboxes (3,008) • maps (904) • photographs (11,090) • reassessment (32) • subprojects (58)
This list is generated automatically every night around 3 AM UTC here.
India articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 3 | 7 | 34 | 49 | 93 | ||
FL | 7 | 8 | 29 | 138 | 182 | ||
A | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 7 | ||
GA | 28 | 61 | 178 | 467 | 1 | 735 | |
B | 135 | 458 | 881 | 1,781 | 1 | 162 | 3,418 |
C | 100 | 890 | 2,306 | 10,232 | 772 | 14,300 | |
Start | 18 | 1,014 | 5,219 | 63,672 | 2 | 2,253 | 72,178 |
Stub | 1 | 295 | 2,344 | 95,320 | 2 | 2,205 | 100,167 |
List | 24 | 213 | 647 | 5,239 | 26 | 195 | 6,344 |
Category | 15 | 42,244 | 42,259 | ||||
Disambig | 789 | 789 | |||||
File | 3 | 1,529 | 1,532 | ||||
Portal | 88 | 88 | |||||
Project | 208 | 208 | |||||
Redirect | 2 | 117 | 423 | 6,191 | 3,839 | 10,572 | |
Template | 1 | 6,398 | 6,399 | ||||
NA | 55 | 96 | 151 | ||||
Draft | 1 | 13 | 810 | 824 | |||
Assessed | 319 | 3,066 | 12,063 | 183,178 | 56,032 | 5,588 | 260,246 |
Unassessed | 1 | 1 | 1 | 97 | 2,865 | 2,965 | |
Total | 320 | 3,067 | 12,064 | 183,275 | 56,032 | 8,453 | 263,211 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 1,030,817 | Ω = 5.40 |
This table is now up to date again.
It is updated by a tool on the toolserver; it will not work if the toolserver is
having problems.
If this chart is showing much more than zero,
then the table will be updated slowly or not at all.
IMPORTANT: If you wish to make a peer-review request, please follow the instructions here.
The peer review department of the India WikiProject conducts peer review of articles on request. The primary objective is to encourage better articles by having contributors who may not have worked on articles to examine them and provide ideas for further improvement.
The peer review process is highly flexible and can deal with articles of any quality; however, requesting reviews on very short articles may not be productive, as there is little for readers to comment on.
All reviews are conducted by fellow editors—usually members of the India WikiProject. While there is a general intent to expand this process to allow for review by subject experts, the preparations for this are not yet complete.