Version migration
This notice may be cached—the current version can be found here.

Dwarf Fortress Wiki:Quality

From Dwarf Fortress Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

48.7 out of 100 quality rating for DF2014 namespace (approximate)

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

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

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

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

25.9 out of 100 quality rating for Masterwork namespace (approximate)

73 out of 100 quality rating for Utility namespace (approximate)

0.40.13 Masterwork 0.34.11 0.31.25
Tattered 5.1% (101) 57% (158) 0.1% (2) 1.6% (22) 2.9% (34) 0% (0)
Fine 19% (378) 24.5% (68) 40.4% (742) 44.8% (622) 44.3% (528) 57.8% (402)
Superior 13.5% (269) 5.8% (16) 12.3% (225) 2.6% (36) 5% (60) 3.5% (24)
Exceptional 24.1% (480) 3.2% (9) 43.6% (800) 48.5% (673) 38.1% (454) 37.8% (263)
Masterwork 0.8% (15) 0% (0) 3.6% (66) 2.5% (34) 5.3% (63) 0.9% (6)
Unknown 749 26 1 0 53 0
Total 1992 277 1836 1387 1192 695
Rating 48.7 out of 100 25.9 out of 100 83.9 out of 100 82.2 out of 100 76.9 out of 100 80.3 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.


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


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
  • The article has multiple editors