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 questions Edit

How can I get an 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 an 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

Instructions Edit

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).

Syntax Edit

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 assessment Edit

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 assessment Edit

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 parameters Edit

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 scale Edit

  1. ^ For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. However, where quite a number of pictures exist, for instance, the moon landing, FPC attempts to select the best of the ones produced.
  2. ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
  3. ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.

Importance scale Edit

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

Statistics Edit

WikiProject Medicine assessment statistics


Requesting an assessment or re-assessment Edit

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

List Edit

  • 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)Reply[reply]
      Done C-class. Thank you for your improvements to this article, @221MD. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Platform trial- I initially wrote this article and would appreciate an initial assessment! Thank you 221MD (talk) 06:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bibeyjj rated this as C-class, which I agree with. The biggest change I'd recommend is adding a lot more links to other Wikipedia articles, especially for technical terms or other words that you wouldn't expect everyone (high schooler? English major? bartender? grocery store cashier?) to know. There's no need to add the same link three or four times in the article, but try linking to as many medical/scientific articles once as you can. You can get a general notion of what I mean at Coronary perfusion pressure, where I just added a bunch of links. I'm not holding that up as a perfect job, but it's better than it was. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
      Done B class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tirzepatide - I'd like a ballpark as to how far I am from GA status, and I don't think a C rating reflects that. Thank you. X-750 List of articles that I have screwed over 21:04, 21 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @X750, it is currently listed as C-class, as you noted in your request. The mw:ORES system estimates B-class, which I think is fair. I suspect that whether it would pass GA now would depend largely on how familiar the reviewer is with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). For example, the ==Pharmacology== section cites a press release, which is IMO legitimate (because it's talking about what the company did in a particular year), but which some reviewers might reject in a biomedical-focused section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tuberculoma - Not my article and I haven't been working on it, but it doesn't seem to be a stub anymore. Lalaithan (talk) 03:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This was re-rated as C-class. @Lalaithan, you are welcome to re-rate articles yourself, if you'd like. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you. I'm just now learning how to rate well so I wasn't confident in rating (at the point I posted that). Lalaithan (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
      Done B class. @Joeception, would you do me a favor and make sure that the DSM-5 description is not quoting the exact words out of that source? We've had significant problems with plagiarism and copyright violations from that source in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 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)Reply[reply]
      Done B class. There is still a lot of room for improvement in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tetraplegia - Originally rated as a start article, I began working to update both the references and the overall content in every section of this article. Multiple references were added from expert subject matter on the topic of spinal cord injury. Completed goals: significant expansion of knowledge within the article throughout all sections of the article, added illustrations for clarification of topics, added specific etiologies, and added an anatomical explanation of tetraplegia and how it relates to the injury Tdaprano (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Done B class. @Tdaprano, thank you for your work on this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Aspirin-exacerbated respiratory disease - Currently a C-class article. I've updated or rewritten significant portions of the article and added new sections based off of the latest research as there has been a lot of development in the last few years. I've tried to make the article more cohesive and based off of reviews and less a collection of observations from various one off studies, among other general clean up and improvement attempts. Lyall0 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Done B class. Very nicely done, @Lyall0. Thank you for the really substantial improvements and your dedication to using review articles. If you want to consider the Wikipedia:Good articles process, I think you'll need to replace some of the older (10+ years) sources with up-to-date information. (It might be possible to simply swap in some of your recently added sources for some of the older ones.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Carcinoid syndrome - Currently a start class article. I have made significant changes to all aspects of the article, updated the sources, and made the treatment section more neutral in tone. JackNagam (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Done B class. @JackNagam, that outdated orange tag at the top, complaining about the references back in 2013(!) is something you can remove yourself. Once you fix a problem (or see that someone else fixed the problem), we really do want you to remove it. There's no need to wait for someone else to double-check. (If someone disagrees, they can stick it back in.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Uterine prolapse - Currently an S-class article of mid-importance. I updated it significantly over the last month. I added several new sections to follow the manual of style: signs and symptoms, diagnosis and management, outcomes, epidemiology, and history. I also expanded on existing sections, edited the lead, updated references where they could be updated with secondary sources from within the last 5ish years, and added several images. --PPatel224 (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Done B class. Thank you for your work on this article, @PPatel224. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Renal hypoplasia - Currently rated Stub-class, but it has been expanded a bit. Thanks, AxiumWiki (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Laryngitis - Rated Start-class since 2008. It needs a reassessment. Thanks, AxiumWiki (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Irritation fibroma - Currently unassessed. Thanks, AxiumWiki (talk) 05:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @AxiumWiki, I have quickly assessed all three for you. You are allowed to assess articles on your own, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks. I’m not confident enough to rate articles on my own and I prefer someone else to do it. AxiumWiki (talk) 06:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No problem. Thanks for improving these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]