Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Quality

82.5 out of 100 quality rating for the DF2014 namespace (approximate)

79.3 out of 100 quality rating for the v0.34 namespace (approximate)

77.6 out of 100 quality rating for the v0.31 namespace (approximate)

75.6 out of 100 quality rating for the 40d namespace (approximate)

73.6 out of 100 quality rating for the 23a namespace (approximate)

26.2 out of 100 quality rating for the Masterwork namespace (approximate)

74.5 out of 100 quality rating for the Utility namespace (approximate)

To update these progress bars, click here

	50.14	Masterwork	0.34.11	0.31.25	0.28.181.40d	0.23.130.23a
Tattered	0.6% (14)	61.6% (173)	0.1% (2)	1.4% (20)	2.7% (32)	0% (0)
Fine	23.9% (536)	28.5% (80)	40.6% (749)	44.8% (625)	46.7% (563)	57.6% (414)
Superior	31.2% (700)	6% (17)	12.4% (228)	2.7% (37)	6.8% (82)	3.5% (25)
Exceptional	41.5% (931)	3.6% (10)	43.1% (796)	48.4% (675)	38.3% (462)	37.1% (267)
Masterwork	2.3% (51)	0% (0)	3.5% (65)	2.4% (34)	5.4% (65)	0.8% (6)
Unknown	12	1	6	3	2	7
Total	2244	281	1846	1394	1206	719
Rating	82.5 out of 100	26.2 out of 100	79.3 out of 100	77.6 out of 100	75.6 out of 100	73.6 out of 100

Ratings

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

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.

Tattered

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

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

Superior

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

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

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
• The article has multiple editors