v50 Steam/Premium information for editors
  • v50 information can now be added to pages in the main namespace. v0.47 information can still be found in the DF2014 namespace. See here for more details on the new versioning policy.
  • Use this page to report any issues related to the migration.
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.

Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Quality

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

50.13 0.34.11 0.31.25
Tattered 0.6% (14) 0.1% (2) 1.4% (20) 2.7% (32) 0% (0)
Fine 23.9% (535) 40.6% (749) 44.9% (625) 46.6% (562) 57.5% (413)
Superior 31.2% (700) 12.4% (228) 2.7% (37) 6.8% (82) 3.5% (25)
Exceptional 41.5% (930) 43.1% (796) 48.4% (674) 38.3% (462) 37.2% (267)
Masterwork 2.3% (51) 3.5% (65) 2.4% (34) 5.4% (65) 0.8% (6)
Unknown 12 6 3 2 7
Total 2242 1846 1393 1205 718
Rating 82.5 out of 100 79.3 out of 100 77.6 out of 100 75.6 out of 100 73.6 out of 100
Tattered 61.6% (173)
Fine 28.5% (80)
Superior 6% (17)
Exceptional 3.6% (10)
Masterwork 0% (0)
Unknown 1
Total 281
Rating 26.2 out of 100



In order to rate articles, click the "rate" tab when on the page you wish to rank, then fill out the form in order to suggest an appropriate rating. If you feel the suggested rating is incorrect, you may override it and force a specific rating.

There are 5 official ratings (plus an additional "unknown" for any manually applied ratings which do not match), all described below.


Unknown Quality Articles have been tagged with a quality level not recognized by the wiki, whether accidentally (incorrect spelling or capitalization) or intentionally (to request that somebody else rate the article).

If you encounter these, please evaluate and rate them according to the criteria below. Note that in some cases, a page may get an error when attempting to give them a proper rating, such as a "template loop" error.


Tattered Quality Articles have many of the following characteristics:

  • May be a stub article
  • Lacks information
  • Contains inaccurate information
  • Is not categorized

This rating should only be used for articles that strictly need improvement. For example, pages for creatures, vermin, or stone types should not be rated as Tattered unless they are missing key components: infobox, description (creatures/vermin only), raws, and navigation box.


Fine Quality Articles have many of the following characteristics:

  • Has a substantial number of redlinks, very few links or no links at all
  • Contains little to no inaccurate information
  • Contains some information that needs to be verified

Pages which are entirely auto-generated from the raws should be rated Fine.


Superior Quality Articles have most of the following characteristics:

  • No important information is missing (includes templates/infoboxes, obvious facts, etc.)
    • May be missing some less-important information
  • Has a sufficient number of links
  • Has very few red links
  • Includes all standard templates
    • Templates are completed when necessary (including butchering returns for creatures, labors for workshops, etc.)
  • Is properly categorized


Exceptional Quality Articles have ALL of the following characteristics:

  • Is properly categorized
  • Has a decent amount of information (is "complete" for the purposes of new players looking for information)
  • Has all appropriate templates
  • DOES NOT have any pink text at the bottom of the Article Version template (these indicate some kind of problem; for details, view the Template:ArticleVersion page)
  • Is properly/sufficiently linked to other articles
  • Contains no inaccurate information, but may have a small amount of information that needs to be completely verified.
  • Has multiple editors


Masterwork Quality Articles are the best of the best. We do not expect all articles to reach this quality; in fact, the guidelines for this quality are set so that most articles are actually incapable of ever reaching this high mark. Masterwork quality articles have ALL of the following characteristics:

  • Covers an important "must-read" topic
  • Is comprehensive on the subject
  • Contains no unverified information
  • Has an appropriate number of outbound links
  • No redlinks are present
  • Article is aesthetically pleasing
  • Is properly categorized
  • Has multiple editors