Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment

Quality: FA | A | GA | B | C | Start | Stub | Unassessed · Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Medicine! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's medicine articles . While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. Anyone can assess articles. You do not need to be an administrator, or even be a registered editor. Please follow the instructions below to help out with this ongoing task. The Wikipedia-wide importance scheme and quality scheme are used.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPMED}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Medicine articles by quality and Category:Medicine articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

All articles under medicine project should try to adhere to Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). An article is unlikely to attract a grade above B class if it does not conform to style guideline. A Featured Article is the highest possible assessment, and requires a community consensus demonstrated at Featured Article Candidates per the guidelines of What Is a Featured Article?

Frequently asked questionsEdit

How can I get my article rated?
First, make sure that the article is actually within the scope of the project (see below). If it is, you can list it in the requesting an assessment section below.
Who can assess articles?
Anyone is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
Relist it as a request or contact the project.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine directly.

Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article?Edit

This project supports articles related to medicine, such as diseases, conditions, and treatments for humans. However, there are many areas of medicine that it does not support, including veterinary medicine and alternative medicine. Additionally, there are other projects that are more closely related to some articles. Here are some other projects that may be better matches for some topics:

Probably no
Use judgment


An article's assessment is generated from the parameters in the {{WPMED}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed medicine articles (empty as of June 2011).


You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below. This is the rating syntax (ratings are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{WPMED |class= |importance=}}
  • Displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.
  • Classed A with Top priority. All assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in.

Quality assessmentEdit

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMED}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPMED |class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:

Priority assessmentEdit

An article's priority assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WPMED}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPMED |importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Task force parametersEdit

If an article is within the scope of a task force, use the code below, replacing taskforce with the name of the desired task force:

{{WPMED|taskforce=Yes |taskforce-imp=???}}

The following parameters may be used for the taskforce variable, with the value always being Yes:

For task forces that use their own priority assessment, the taskforce-imp parameter should be used, replacing "taskforce" in taskforce-imp with one of the above values. Acceptable values for the taskforce-imp parameters are the same as for the importance parameter, listed above in #Priority assessment.

If a taskforce is indicated, but a taskforce-imp is not given, some taskforces will use the WPMED importance, whereas others will rank it as unassessed importance for the taskforce.

Quality scaleEdit

Importance scaleEdit

The purpose of the importance rating is to direct the project's article improvement efforts towards the most important articles, and incidentally to provide a convenient shortlist of important topics for readers who are interested in medicine generally.

All diseases, conditions, medications, and tests are of "top" importance to people who are directly affected by them. The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability that the average reader of Wikipedia will look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics that are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to a student, expert or patient.

WPMED's specific guidelines for importance ratings are provided below. In making an assessment, it is often helpful to compare the article with others that already have the proposed rating. Links to each category are provided in the first column of this table:

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top priority Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to medicine. Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Less than 1% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating. Tuberculosis or Cancer
High priority Subject is clearly important. Subject is interesting to, or directly affects, many average readers. This category includes the most common diseases and treatments as well as major areas of specialization. Fewer than 10% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating. Coeliac disease or Mastectomy
Mid priority Normal priority for article improvement. A good article would be interesting or useful to many readers. Subject is notable within its particular specialty. This category includes most medical conditions, tests, approved drugs, medical subspecialties, well-known anatomy, and common signs and symptoms. Cholangiocarcinoma or Cramp
Low priority Article may only be included to cover a specific part of a more important article, or may be only loosely connected to medicine. Subject may be specific to one country or part of one country, such as licensing requirements or organizations. This category includes most of the following: very rare diseases, lesser-known medical signs, equipment, hospitals, individuals, historical information, publications, laws, investigational drugs, detailed genetic and physiological information, and obscure anatomical features. Leopard syndrome or Flynn effect
NA NA means Not an Article. This label is used for all pages that are not articles, such as templates, categories, and disambiguation pages. (To mark an article as "needs assessment" or "not assessed," simply leave the importance parameter empty, like this: |importance= ) WikiProject Medicine


WikiProject Medicine assessment statistics


Requesting an assessment or re-assessmentEdit

What you can accomplish here
This process is to find out whether your article is currently assessed at the correct level (Stub, Start, C, B) and correct importance (Low, Mid, High, Top). If you have significantly expanded an article and it is rated below B class, or if you feel the rating is otherwise incorrect, then please feel free to list it below.
What you can NOT accomplish here
  • If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, contact the volunteers at WT:MED or list it at Peer review instead.
  • If you think the article is particularly well written, then you can nominate it as a possible Good article or even as a possible Featured article.
  • We do not currently have a process for identifying A-class articles.
Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM


  • Intermittent fasting - significant updates, notably adding AHA guidelines + illustrations + other high quality sources added. Currently rated start. --Signimu (talk) 17:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
      Done, B class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Postpartum blues - significant updates to article and references. Had not been previously rated on WikiProject Medicine. Mlshulk (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
      Done, C class. Thank you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Very-low-calorie diet - entire revision, adding guidelines and systematic reviews on RCTs refs + illustration. Not previously rated by any project. --Signimu (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Someone already rated it as C class. Signimu, if you still have an interest in this, could you do a quick search for a few more recent sources? In an ideal world, we wouldn't use sources from the 20th century for any type of Wikipedia:Biomedical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ramon Guiteras: Significant expansion, especially to references. Currently rated as "Stub" quality, I think it now merits a "Start" or possibly a "C", but not higher. (Anyone want to take over developing it?) —DocWatson42 (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
    DocWatson42, the current version contains six (very amply cited) sentences. Less than 10 sentences is one rule of thumb for identifying stubs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    @WhatamIdoing: Okay. I hadn't checked or been aware of the rule. Thank you. (My question about someone else working on it still stands—I'm more of a copy editor than a writer.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    It's a "rule of thumb", not a hard requirement. This page is not watched by very many people. I'm not sure where to find someone who might be interested, but I'll post it on a page or two, and maybe we'll find someone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutralizing antibody - article expanded and merged with Neutralisation (immunology) article. The number of page views of this article has increased significantly in the last month (possibly because neutralising antibodies are discussed as a treatment option of COVID-19). It might be good to increase the article's importance rating. Huhny (talk) 06:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
    Someone has rated it as B-class, which is the highest rating possible through this process. I've updated the priority rating to Mid, since we're working on this more often. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Chronic fatigue syndrome significant recent changes in the field are not being reflecting, eg CDC and Dutch Health Council abandoning previous treatments CBT and GET which dominate the page, PACE trial 2016 data release showing null effect. Controversial topic missing most medical advances since 2015. Separate Controversies related to chronic fatigue syndrome page and treatment pages also exists. Please consider regrade to C and increase priority. Amousey (talk) 15:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    Someone has rated the article as B-class, which is the highest quality class possible through this process. The current priority is not unreasonable, and changing it will not have any practical effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • WHO Surgical Safety Checklist -- Added content and references as part of the Wikipedia-Editing Course. Currently rated as "Start" quality and has a banner mentioning over-reliance on primary sources; hope to upgrade the quality class and that the added references provide enough information from secondary sources. Winged Scapula (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
      Done, B class. Thank you, Winged Scapula. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Extensive use of primary sources, off-topic content, and problems with WP:NOTADVICE and unencyclopedic tone make the current C-class assessment correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Done, B class anyway. While the article needs some work, I am confident that this work will not change these rather blunt assessment categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sensory processing disorder Suggestions from previous review were followed. Unnecesary symptom descriptions, argumentative language and unsourced elements were deleted. Better images were selected. Diagnosis controversy posted on first paragraph as suggested. Chibs007 19:48, 14 July 2020‎ UTC
  • José María Esquerdo newly added Zedgamer9128 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
      Done! Promoted to Start class based on the decent prose, the lack of sectioning, and the amount of relevant content. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Foreign body aspiration Article expanded. Significant edits made including images and references in addition to the new content. Peer review process involved. Thank you in advance for your time! User: Logan6465
      Done! Promoted to B class based on the broad coverage, the good prose, the excellent referencing, the perfect sectioning, and a recommendation from Rater. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Respiratory syncytial virus - Significant article expansion with almost complete rewrite and several new sections. Updated all references and added new images. Page previously focused almost exclusively on bronchiolitis, expanded to be more representative of other disease presentations. Also resolved several expansion requests. ACMetro (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
      Done! Promoted to B class based on the broad coverage, the excellent prose, the excellent referencing, the perfect sectioning, and a recommendation from Rater. I believe that it may be ready for a Good Article Nomination. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Neurogenic claudication - Greatly expanded the contents of the article, adding new content in existing sections and also adding new sections and additional information, with referencing for all the added information. The information on the article does seem that it has improved from a stub article dramatically. Thank you in advance for the reassessment. --Anonymous221100 (talk) 01:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
      Done! Promoted to B class based on the broad coverage, the excellent prose, the excellent referencing, the perfect sectioning, and a recommendation from Rater. I believe that it may be ready for a Good Article Nomination (with some modifications to the long lead section). Bibeyjj (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Benadryl - Hi I have expanded this stub by adding new content and images and I would greatly appreciate it if it could get reassessed. Thank you in advance!--Redvelvetcake5 (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
      Done! Promoted to B class based on the broad coverage of the topic, the good prose, the good referencing, and a recommendation from Rater. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Genodermatosis Article expanded, I added many new sections, links and images, updated all references and improved the infobox. Thank you in advance for the reassessment!--Mavis67 (talk) 02:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      Done! Promoted to C class based on the decent coverage and prose, but not to B based on the structure. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Hip dislocation Restructured entire article and fleshed out data making it more palatable and practicable for a general audience. Thank you in advance for the reassessment!--Kgnwa (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)--
      Done! Promoted to B class based on the broad coverage, the good prose, the sectioning (albeit in an unusual order), relatively good referencing, and a recommendation from Rater. Bibeyjj (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Sickle cell retinopathy Hi I’ve redone the majority of the article using new sources and citing more appropriately. I have also expanded on sections that required more information. Thank you in advance for the reassessment TeHilla98 (talk) 08:20, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pagophagia Hello, this article has been expanded; new sections, cited sources, and more recent information has been added following the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles. Edits were also made to the information that was previously present on the article. Thank you in advance! LCapistrano (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Intestinal pseudo-obstruction - I have expanded this article and carefully combed through the current research and literature on this topic. I have extracted information from the Treatment's section that was not well supported in literature or should be included within a different article. CheckDO (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Cyanosis - I have significantly expanded this article, added several pictures representing specific populations, and reviewed/added citations.Joshua Cho28 (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Cardiac arrest - Kjlockart and I have significantly worked on this article culminating in changes in structure/organization of the article for better flow, enhanced readability with precise layperson language, and expansion upon sub headings such as Causes/Mechanisms, Prevention and much more. Citations and images were also reviewed and added.Vsnguyen.em (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Heartburn - this article was originally a start article and has been almost entirely rewritten. Significant additions to the sections on differential diagnoses and treatment have been included. Article has organizational changes promoting readability for the medical professional or patient alike to read. CheckDO (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Coronary Perfusion Pressure- this article was originally a stub but I have added significant additions, sections and clarified previous language. 221MD (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Platform trial- I initially wrote this article and would appreciate an initial assessment! Thank you 221MD (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Artificial intelligence in healthcare - I updated the article to be more thorough, added citations, and removed uncited or biased information and would appreciate an assessment for upgrading its class. Thank you. Daspj (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Phobia - Currently rated as a start class article. I updated the article with more recent references. Added additional sections previously missing to align with wikimed manual of style. Joeception (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Cardiovascular disease in women - Currently rated as a C class article. I have added in appropriate and significant sections, including a history, treatments and prevention methods, and others. I have also updated the article with more recent references to ensure there is up-to-date information present. Sahrishmasood (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)