Welcome to the assessment department of the Food and drink WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Food and drink 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.
Any member of the Food and drink 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.
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPFOOD}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WPFOOD|class=???}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment 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;
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
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.
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
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.
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.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; 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.
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.
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.
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equaling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.
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.
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.
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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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.
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.
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.
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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
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.
Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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.
The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title.
Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title.
Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes.
Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles.
Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.
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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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.
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WPFOOD}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WPFOOD|importance=???}}
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):
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 culinary students.
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.
Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.
Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.
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.
Food reality television - has been improved with new content and references. It is currently rated a C-class article, but the talk page says it has not yet been checked again B-class criteria. I appreciate your help.
Nanjing salted duck - This article is not yet rated. I have made significant changes to it, adding a lot of new information, including multiple sections, multiple references, infobox, images, etc. I will continue to add and revise it over the next few weeks and try to make it as best as I can, thank you. KRNEING (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New Mexico chile - The article has long since been overhauled with far more comprehensive information, new sections, improved flow, and citation and cleanup; currently C-class. My goal is to have this article eventually featured. Thank you! Kehkou (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Corporate farming - This article was ranked as start class. I have made significant changes to the whole thing, so a reassessment/input would be much appreciated. Creigpat (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please assess Kiwifruit, it is a high importance piece with a lot of viewership, it should be at least B may need a little help to become A, if you can indicate things to fix to make it A it would be good as well.144.188.128.3 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Scialatelli - has recently had a lot of sources added, might be start class now. Also may be rated too high on the importance scale. Ibadibam (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Broccolini - Have added a few sources & information recently. Currently at start class but should be at C. JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mate (beverage) - Has not been rated yet, no ratings for impotance or quality. Rated as B on the Uruguayan WikiProject.Springfan (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahi poke -it is currently listed as a stub. Sources, formatting and content have been added. Klosc440 (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looney's Pub -currently not assessed. Article has many sources but there is room for expansion and review. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Toby's Dinner Theatre -currently not assessed. In my opinion, there can be improvements made to the food and drink portion of this page. Thsmi002 (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lithuanian cuisine - complemented significantly since the January of 2018. Would be nice to get an assesment within WikiProject Food and drink project. -- Ke an (talk) 08:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Castanea sativa - we (a group of agronomy students) have made substantial changes to the article, and we would like a new assessment of the article. Thanks! Altcropgrup (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twisties - could this be reassessed when there is time? It has been expanded and citations added. Thank you! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aero (chocolate bar) - could this please also be reassessed? I have added further information and citations throughout. Thanks so much! SunnyBoi (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Smoked meat - I have made significant additions to the article. It was rated start class, had little accurate information and was flagged for citations (went from 2 to 43). Please review. Thank You! Perplexed28 (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Max Headroom has been expanded with many citations and factual corrections (last assessed 2010). Also... should it be part of this project? Already part of Fictional characters, which seems like a more natural fit. BrightVamp (talk) 15:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cơm tấm has been completed overhauled. I was initially a stub-class with a few uncited paragraph. After this overhaul, it's well structured, tons of new content, and well cited. I strongly believe it deserves a better quality class. Please re-assess it. Thank you! --Koonlew (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
White Onion - Currently assessed as a stub, but I have been developing the content in it and feel that it is at least a start or a c-class article. Although a flag for the amount of citations exists, I have significantly increased the content and citations of the work. If possible, I would like this article reassessed. Thank you! --Crosspuzzles12 (talk) 00:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bicol Express has been improved with expanded information, new content and added references. It is currently a stub article but I believe it has been improved to a start or C-class quality. Are you able to reassess it, please? Thank you! --RibbaSky (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cuisine of Quebec is start-class but I put a lot of time into it and I would like it to be re-assessed to reflect what it is now --Safyrr (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Colby-Jack I have been working on this page for a while and would like it assessed from a stub to a higher class because I feel it is more than a stub. --Kayy1199 (talk) 00:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Celebrity tomato I have added a substantial amount of information to this stub and would like it to be assessed for a higher rating. Thank you! --Tanny2010 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meat and Livestock Australia Hi, I have expanded this article over the past few months and the article has reached a C-class article status. Assessment against the b-class article criteria would be highly appreciated. Thank you! Umbrella.Won (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Monégasque cuisine Hi, I have expanded this article quite substantially and would like it to be assessed for a higher rating. Thank you! A.ww22 (talk) 07:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flourless chocolate cake Hi, I have updated the article regarding Flourless chocolate cake. I added references and citations and would like it to be assessed for a higher rating from stub. Thank you! Sshockley1 (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Crushed red pepper I've expanded the crushed red pepper article by adding additional sections and missing citations. I would like this article to be assessed for a higher rating. Thanks! SterlingAC (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hardtack - I have made multiple edits to this page and overhauled the history section to include references to period-accurate documents and literature. This article has had it's requests for additional citations removed and I believe it meets B-Class status, if not GA. Thanks! JRHistorical (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
Assessment log
This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.
National Pork Board (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
Pasqua Rosée (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to FA-Class. (rev · t)
Schnitz un knepp (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
Singhara Kachari (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
Sofrito (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
Sprattus (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
Taylor Provisions (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
Water caltrop (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
