How Quality Is Measured Inside an Open Encyclopedia
Any rigorous explanation of what is Wikipedia eventually confronts a paradox. The platform allows virtually anyone to contribute, yet some articles achieve a level of polish that rivals professionally edited reference works. These articles are not accidental. They result from structured review processes known as Featured Articles (FA) and Good Articles (GA). Together, they represent Wikipedia’s internal benchmarks for quality.
We secure neutral, policy-aligned Wikipedia citations for reliable inclusion of your organization within the website. Our work focuses on editorial quality, transparent disclosure, and long-term retention rather than promotional insertions.
No Instagram? Contact us here
Wikipedia defines itself as “a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” This statement, repeated across almost every Wikipedia introduction and Wikipedia overview, emphasizes openness rather than hierarchy. The existence of Featured and Good Articles complicates that picture. They demonstrate that openness does not preclude standards, evaluation, or selective recognition.
The policy language clarifies the intent:
“Featured articles exemplify Wikipedia’s very best work.”
— Wikipedia, Featured article criteria
Quality, in this context, is neither aesthetic nor ideological. It is procedural, documented, and contestable.
Why Featured and Good Articles Exist
Wikipedia grew rapidly in its early years, accumulating vast quantities of content with uneven quality. By the mid-2000s, contributors recognized a need for internal reference points—articles that demonstrated what the encyclopedia could look like when policies were applied rigorously.
Featured Articles emerged first, followed by Good Articles as a more accessible quality tier. The intent was not to create an elite class, but to establish models.
As one policy page explains:
“Featured articles are meant to serve as examples of the best that Wikipedia has to offer.”
— Wikipedia, Featured articles
This function remains central. Featured and Good Articles guide contributors learning wiki basics, providing concrete illustrations of sourcing, structure, neutrality, and completeness.
The Difference Between Featured and Good Articles
Featured Articles and Good Articles share core principles yet differ in depth, scrutiny, and expectations.
Featured Articles (FA)
Featured Articles represent the highest standard on Wikipedia. They must satisfy stringent criteria across multiple dimensions:
- Comprehensive coverage of the topic
- High-quality, reliable sourcing
- Neutral and balanced tone
- Stable content without ongoing disputes
- Professional-level writing
- Appropriate use of media
The criteria specify:
“A featured article is well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, neutral, stable, and illustrated, where appropriate.”
— Wikipedia, Featured article criteria
Only a small fraction of articles reach this level.
Good Articles (GA)
Good Articles form a broader category. They meet core encyclopedic standards yet fall short of the exhaustive depth required for Featured status.
“A good article meets a set of editorial standards that are less demanding than those for featured articles.”
— Wikipedia, Good article criteria
Good Articles are accurate, verifiable, and readable. They may lack the exhaustive detail or refinement of Featured Articles, yet they exceed baseline expectations.
In practical terms, Good Articles often serve as stepping stones toward Featured status.
How Many Articles Meet These Standards
The scale of Wikipedia contextualizes the rarity of these designations.
As of recent public statistics:
- The English Wikipedia hosts over six million articles.
- Fewer than 7,000 are designated as Featured Articles.
- Roughly 40,000 hold Good Article status.
This means Featured Articles account for well under 0.2 percent of the encyclopedia. Good Articles remain under 1 percent.
These figures highlight selectivity rather than abundance. Quality recognition operates as an exception, not a default.
The Review Process: Peer Evaluation in Practice
Both Featured and Good Article statuses require formal review. These reviews occur publicly and rely on peer evaluation rather than centralized authority.
Good Article Review
Any editor may nominate an article for Good Article review. A volunteer reviewer examines the article against GA criteria and provides feedback.
The reviewer may:
- Approve the article
- Request specific improvements
- Fail the nomination with explanations
The process emphasizes collaboration. Authors often revise articles during review, responding to critiques line by line.
Featured Article Candidacy (FAC)
Featured Article review involves deeper scrutiny. Multiple experienced editors participate, evaluating sourcing, prose quality, structure, and policy compliance.
FAC discussions often span weeks. Editors cite policy, request revisions, and test claims against sources.
Consensus determines outcome. Numerical support matters less than the substance of arguments.
This process exemplifies Wikipedia explained as a deliberative system rather than a voting platform.
What Reviewers Look For
Despite topic diversity, reviewers apply consistent standards.
- Sourcing: Are claims supported by reliable, independent sources?
- Coverage: Does the article address major aspects of the topic?
- Balance: Are viewpoints represented proportionally?
- Clarity: Is the prose accessible and precise?
- Stability: Is the article free from edit wars?
These criteria mirror Wikipedia’s core content policies. Featured and Good Articles simply apply them more rigorously.
Examples Across Topics
Featured and Good Articles span subjects ranging from physics and medicine to literature and popular culture. The designation does not privilege technical topics over cultural ones.
This diversity reinforces about Wikipedia as an encyclopedia of human knowledge rather than a narrow academic repository.
The Role of Citations and Sources
High-quality sourcing anchors both FA and GA status. Reviewers scrutinize references closely.
Reliable sources typically include:
- Academic journals
- Books from reputable publishers
- Major news organizations
- Official archival material
Primary sources require careful handling. Reviewers often insist on secondary analysis for interpretation.
This emphasis aligns with Wikipedia’s verifiability policy:
“The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.”
— Wikipedia, Verifiability
Writing Standards and Style
Beyond sourcing, writing quality distinguishes high-status articles. Reviewers expect clarity, coherence, and logical organization.
Prose must remain neutral. Loaded language, editorializing, or rhetorical flourish undermines candidacy.
The Manual of Style guides these expectations. Featured Articles adhere closely to its recommendations.
Stability and Dispute Resolution
Content stability plays a crucial role. Articles subject to ongoing disputes rarely achieve high-status designation.
Reviewers assess edit histories and talk pages. Frequent reversions or unresolved disagreements signal instability.
This requirement incentivizes consensus-building and patient negotiation—core elements of wiki basics.
The Symbolic Function of the Star
Featured Articles display a small star icon. Good Articles show a green plus sign. These symbols carry symbolic weight disproportionate to their size.
They signal to readers that an article has undergone heightened scrutiny. They signal to contributors that collective effort achieved recognition.
The star does not guarantee perfection. Featured Articles may later lose status if standards lapse.
Maintenance After Promotion
Achieving Featured or Good status does not end responsibility. Articles require ongoing maintenance.
New research, changing interpretations, or emerging controversies may necessitate updates. Neglect can lead to reassessment and demotion.
Criticisms and Limitations
Despite their value, Featured and Good Articles face criticism.
Some observers note topic bias. Subjects with active, experienced editors achieve recognition more readily than obscure or marginalized topics lacking sources.
Others argue that review standards may reflect dominant academic norms, disadvantaging non-Western perspectives.
Why These Articles Matter to Readers
For readers unfamiliar with editorial processes, Featured and Good Articles provide reliable entry points. They reduce uncertainty about accuracy and completeness.
Educators, researchers, and journalists often consult these articles first, recognizing the additional scrutiny involved.
Why They Matter to Contributors
For contributors, these designations offer learning opportunities and motivation. The review process exposes editors to detailed feedback grounded in policy.
Participation builds skills transferable beyond Wikipedia: sourcing, critical reading, collaborative writing.
Featured Articles and Wikipedia’s Identity
The existence of Featured and Good Articles clarifies Wikipedia definition in action. The encyclopedia does not claim uniform excellence. It acknowledges variation and highlights best practice.
Quality is aspirational rather than assumed.
Final Considerations
Featured and Good Articles represent Wikipedia’s internal answer to a persistent question: how quality emerges from openness. They demonstrate that volunteer collaboration, guided by transparent standards, can produce work of sustained reliability.
For readers, these articles offer confidence. For contributors, they offer direction. For the project, they anchor credibility within a vast and uneven corpus.
Understanding these designations deepens any understanding of what is Wikipedia. The encyclopedia is not only a collection of pages, but a living system that identifies, evaluates, and learns from its own best work.
