Wikipedia:WikiProject Human rights/Assessment
Welcome to the Assessment Department of the Human rights WikiProject. This group focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's human rights articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 program.
Assessment is done in a distributed system (with many people and automated "bots") when values are included for the two "parameters" in the human rights project banner template. The different values cause the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Human rights articles by quality and Category:Human rights articles by importance.
|Priority||Importance within field||Impact||Need for encyclopedia||Examples|
|Top||Article/subject is crucial to a broad-based understanding of human rights||Widespread (global) and definitive impact on human rights||An absolute "must-have" for any reasonable encyclopedia||Human rights, Geneva Conventions|
|High||Article/subject contributes a substantial depth of knowledge||Significant impact outside context of article. Impact is global, regional or national.||Very much needed, even vital||Amnesty International, Freedom of speech, Rwandan Genocide|
|Mid||Article/subject adds important further details to the topic of human rights||Some impact on human rights outside immediate context of article.||Adds further depth, but not vital to encyclopedia||René Cassin, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Freedom House|
|Low||Article/subject contributes more specific or less significant details||Mainly of specialist interest - has little impact on human rights outside immediate context of article||Not at all essential, or can be covered adequately in lists or other articles||La Cantuta massacre, International Center for Transitional Justice, Crushing|
|(None)||Article/subject may be peripheral||May be only indirectly related to human rights.||May not be relevant or may be too trivial in content to be needed||Comment: such articles are not relevant enough to the Human rights project to need a rating.|
|Human rights articles by quality and importance|