In this paper we address the challenge of assessing the quality of Wikipedia pages using scores derived from edit contribution and contributor authoritativeness measures. The hypothesis is that pages with significant contributions from authoritative contributors are likely to be high-quality pages. Contributions are quantified using edit longevity measures and contributor authoritativeness is scored using centrality metrics in either the Wikipedia talk or co-author networks. The results suggest that it is useful to take into account the contributor authoritativeness when assessing the information quality of Wikipedia content. The percentile visualization of the quality scores provides some insights about the anomalous articles, and can be used to help Wikipedia editors to identify Start and Stub articles that are of relatively good quality.