Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment

WikiProject Philosophy Assessment

Aesthetics Epistemology Ethics

Logic Metaphysics Social and political

Philosophers Literature

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.

Current status

Philosophy task force assessment statistics Philosophy articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 8 17 17 42 FL 5 5 GA 6 31 53 90 2 182 B 37 192 313 504 66 1,112 C 30 356 687 1,452 1 342 2,868 Start 19 367 1,248 3,885 3 1,577 7,099 Stub 73 598 4,090 1,186 5,947 List 1 38 87 122 31 279 Category 6 2 4,168 4,176 Disambig 69 69 File 258 258 Portal 105 105 Project 192 192 Redirect 7 798 805 Template 1 1 1 340 343 Other 104 104 Assessed 93 1,066 3,010 10,175 6,038 3,204 23,586 Unassessed 2 77 79 Total 93 1,066 3,010 10,177 6,038 3,281 23,665 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 86,393 Ω = 5.01 statistics • log • category

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.

Instructions

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Philosophy}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Philosophy|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):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Philosophy articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Philosophy articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Philosophy articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Philosophy articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Philosophy articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Philosophy articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Philosophy articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Philosophy articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Philosophy articles)		List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Philosophy articles)		Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Philosophy articles)		Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Philosophy articles)		Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Philosophy articles)		File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Philosophy articles)		Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Philosophy articles)		Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles)		Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Philosophy articles)		Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Philosophy articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Philosophy articles)		???

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.

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

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.	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. 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; 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. 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.	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 has attained good article status, having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article 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; all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations nor 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 (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.	Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class 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 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. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, 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.	Human (as of April 2019)
C	The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much 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; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.	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 usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	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.	Ring-tailed cardinalfish (as of June 2018)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. Can be well-written, but may also have significant content issues. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; however, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.	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.	Crescent Falls (as of June 2018)
List	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.	List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947 (as of June 2018)

Importance assessment

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

{{WikiProject Philosophy| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

Top

High

Mid

Low

???

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.

Importance scale

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
Top	The article is one of the core topics about philosophy. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Philosophy article.	A reader who is not involved in the philosophy field will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily.	Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages.	Philosophy
High	The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding philosophy.			Epistemology
Mid	The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of philosophy.	Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject.	Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand philosophy. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Articles about most significant individuals in the history of philosophy will be rated in this level.	Absurdism
Low	The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of philosophy.	Few readers outside the philosophy field or that are not philosophy students may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article.	Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of philosophy, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of philosophy.	Ogyū Sorai

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.

• Can I suggest someone look at the Francis Bacon article. It's currently rated as "C" for this group, but I'm of the view that it deserves a higher rating as significant improvements have been made. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that the article on Paolo Virno is start class but do not agree with its assessment as of low IMPORTANCE. Virno is an important figure in the philosophy of political action and communication, as well as of the positioning of types of labor and collectivity in the present world, and deserves better. The article has some strange wording and is inadequately sourced, but the 'low importance' assessment seems to be independent of that. ( Also, what's there needs some copy editing.) Actio (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• Might someone please look at the Arius article again? It was rather poorly written before, and had a "rewrite" tag on it when I found it and set about rewriting and reworking it from top to bottom. I'd be interested in seeing where it is now, compared to where it was before, together with any suggestions for improvement. I definitely think it's better than "Start" class, now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• See Douglas Moggach. Please reassess value and stub status. Thanks. (Canadian1982 (talk) 02:51, 23 June 2010 (UTC))

• Need some editing and review on Kant's antinomies Efiiamagus (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• The Bad faith article needs help. All RS content in the philosophy section of that article was reverted out twice. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• The Justice as Fairness article has been substantially reworked and renovated, improving the content and referencing the majority of claims with a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Thedaggerz (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Genus–differentia_definition; I believe the last assessment was some time ago.

• I have been in /Cved in work that I think might bring both reason and nous to a new assessment level. Can someone have a look?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Also can someone please consider the assessment justified for potentiality and actuality which I think has changed quite a lot since it was last assessed?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Several leading experts in the field rewrote the article Multi-criteria decision analysis. The article covers the main aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis with care and includes important references for further information. The article has been structured to allow linking subfields naturally. The structure has been developed through discussions in the two main lists in the area and other leading experts in the field have committed to write articles in the subfields to complement this article. This article deserves a new rating. Koksalan (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Negative capability. I just overhauled this article, which should make it eligible for an upgrade out of "start class" and an importance rating. I would also appreciate any general feedback. Archivingcontext (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've rated this C class and low importance. My main problem with the article is that it is not as clear as it could be. The lead is worded in quite a confusing way and could be simplified (if you then want to go into detail, do that in the main body of the article). The article also needs background information - what you've got on its development is good, but a reader thrown straight into that may have no idea what the idea is about or responding to. You have some good sources, but heavily rely on a few - it wouldn't hurt to find more.

Therefore, I suggest:

• A section on the background is written to make the context of the article clearer to someone approaching the idea for the first time.
• Improve the lead. I would suggest that you have one paragraph in the lead per section of the article (though no more than 4 paragraphs). Cover each important area in a much more simple way that you will in the rest of the article. I suggest you fix the lead once everything else is sorted.
• See if you can find a few more references.

I hope that helps. Leave a message on my talk page if you have nay further questions or anything. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• Can someone take look at the Tetrabiblos article. It currently has no rating. -- Zac Δ ^talk! 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• The Reflectivism article has been very substantially rewritten. A large number of references has also been added. Would it be possible to re-assess?--Ksamjg (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
• The Mirror test has changed significantly since it was last assessed (either up or down). I merged the Rouge test article in with it and did some significant rewriting. I fixed some issues but may have introduced others with the merger.—Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 20:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• All men are created equal is currently classified as Stub-Class; after cursory inspection it seems to me that it could be upgraded to Start-Class. What do you think? --Georgepauljohnringo (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have overhauled Philosophy Documentation Center and re-assessed it from "Stub" to "C". I'm not too familiar with this project, but from the above scale it seems that it's importance rating should be "Low", instead of the current "High". Perhaps someone from this project can have a look. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

• The importance of the article Normative OUGHT TO be assessed as High, or Top (I have just made a normative claim). The concept is fundamental to Ethics, Aesthetics (and other Values), also Social and Political philosophy and indeed arguably fundamental to understanding Wikipedia's "Neutral Point-of-view" policy and even more IMPORTANTLY its "notability" requirements. It is the normative character of the field of ethics and aesthetics that strongly distinguishes their content from that of "science" (aside - in my opinion, aesthetics ought to be classified as a sub-class of ethics). Indeed, it is a commonly held belief, particularly amongst scientists, that all normative claims are unscientific. Arguably, a writing from a "Neutral Point-of-View" is highly correlated with writing that is non-normative. "Notability", in fact, is an intrinsically normative concept. It is almost impossible to have a sensible discussion about cultural relativism without an understanding of normativity, whether or not that understanding is explicitly connected to that term. With only slight exaggeration, "normativity" is a concept as fundamental to philosophy as that of "unknown quantity" is to algebra.Thomasee73 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please may I request that the article Edward Bullough is reassessed, as to quality only? It was expanded from a stub this week. Many thanks. Mouse ABC (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

• Kim Il-yeop This article has been given an importance rating of "Top". I do not think this is justified - such a rating has been reserved for topics such as logic and Aristotle. Please review the importance rating for this article.

• I have posted on the Talk page the next statement:

If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause, and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum or it ends at some primordial cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition, so causality ultimately cannot explain anything. Discussion, please (on the Talk pag)e about whether to put it in the causality article. Antonquery (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Subject-object problem: This article had a massive multiple issues header and now has been completely re-written. Please make a new assessment. Brews ohare (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Greg Bard (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Dialectic - I feel that only people who already understand the topic could understand the explaination. --User:71.192.25.119

• Twenty one philosophy journals are ranked top in importance, which seems crazy to me. Few people outside of philosophy will be familiar with them, so they should be ranked low. Beamish Son (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Beamish Son

• I have rewritten liberal paradox. I would greatly appreciate some other set of eyes. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Rationalism has been improved by Joshuafilmer. I think it qualifies for an assessment upgrade. Could someone from this project please take a look. MrBill3 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Sentences of Sextus - Unassessed article on a text that mixes Christian and Pythagorean material (Or simply gives Pythagorean material a Christian 'spin'. Needs assessing. Also if anyone is interested I managed to find some more sources.Graham1973 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Exhortation to the Greeks - Shameless self-promotion. I'm thinking C quality, not stub. Any agreement? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• Philosophy of science - is it to B yet? Any suggestions for what's needed before a GA review? -hugeTim ^(talk) 16:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Could someone reassess bias please ? Anthere (talk) 15:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, I've expanded the stub article on the important Plato and Aristotle scholar Harold F. Cherniss, which turned out to be an exciting detective story (atom bombs, spies!). I'm a new member of Wikiproject Philosophy. Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome! JohnD'Alembert (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've translated a terrific article from the German Wikipedia on Plato's unwritten doctrines. The Germans rated it as excellent and made it a featured article. Did that come through in the translation? Any suggestions for improvement would be welcome! JohnD'Alembert (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Self-disorder

• The Mismeasure of Desire is presently rated a stub, but that assessment was made in November 2013, and the article has been expanded since then. Requesting reassessment. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

• Requesting someone to tell us if effective altruism is B-class yet. K.Bog 22:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

• Requesting assessment of the article "Nader El-Bizri" and its improvement. Thank you (AcademeEditorial (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC))

• Could someone please assess the ataraxia article? I've expanded it somewhat and I think it could be moved from stub to start class. Thanks. Ethan Della Rocca (talk) 23:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• I would like to have Gabrielle Suchon removed from stub class as I have added a significant amount of content. Thank you!Vsgrossman (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• The article The Ecology of Freedom currently lacks ratings on the project's quality and importance scales. I request them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• The article Fashionable Nonsense currently lacks ratings on the project's quality and importance scales. I request them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• The article Ecology, community and lifestyle currently lacks ratings on the project's quality and importance scales. I request them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• Robert L. Holmes --> Kindly reassess when time permits. It is currently rated as a Stub but has been upgraded with an Info Box, a photograph, a section on Moral Philosophy, an expansion of the Publications section, an External Links section, and additional links to pacifism and nonviolence related articles. Many thanks in advance.104.207.219.150 (talk) 17:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)PS

• Bias is currently Class-C and High-importance. But the page has had a major overhaul since its last assessment. When possible can someone take a look? Thanks. - Andrewaskew (talk) 05:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

• Crito. I recently finished translating the article after it had turned out that it was plagiarized, so I believe a reassessment in in order. puggo (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Economic ethics is currently Class-C but lacks a rating on the importance scale. Also, a significant amount of content has been added since its last assessment. Please review. Thanks in advance, your help is greatly appreciated.Hyperionperc34 03:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Political bias is currently Class-C but lacks a rating on the importance scale. Also, a significant amount of content has been added since its last assessment. Please review. Thanks in advance, your help is greatly appreciated. 2804:14C:5BB5:8076:6093:746:AC7:F76A (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• Religious philosophy is currently rated a Stub. However I've added material and have expanded the page to include multiple sections and would appreciate a revision of the class rating. Thanks in advance! --NagaiEE (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

• 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)