Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism
WikiProject Skepticism
 · Scientific skepticism article
 · Join the Project
 · Main Discussion (w)
 · List of topics
 · To do
 · Project resources
 · Article alerts
 · Fringe theories noticeboard
 · New articles (l) (r)
 · Article list
 · Popular pages
 · Nuvola apps important.svg Needing attention (-1)
 · Symbol support vote.svg Needing improvement
 · Edit-clear.svg Cleanup
 · Did you know?
 · Requested articles
 · RFC
Skepticism articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
Featured article FA 2 3 4 9 18
Featured list FL 1 1
A-Class article A 1 1
GA 5 9 16 44 1 75
B 11 57 131 142 4 5 350
C 16 78 237 380 3 15 729
Start 4 67 266 874 14 31 1,256
Stub 9 34 245 5 8 301
List 2 15 25 46 6 2 96
Book 4 4
Category 1 2 8 1,109 1,120
Disambig 4 4
File 10 10
Project 9 9
Template 2 3 22 27
NA 1 1 18 70 90
Other 1 2 10 13
Assessed 41 241 717 1,773 1,270 62 4,104
Unassessed 1 1 3 124 129
Total 41 242 718 1,776 1,270 186 4,233
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 12,213 Ω = 4.47

Welcome to the assessment department of the Skepticism WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Skepticism related 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.

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

Frequently asked questionsEdit

How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Skepticism WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
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.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are, 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 them on the discussion page for this department.

InstructionsEdit

Quality assessmentsEdit

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

{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Skepticism articles)   FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Skepticism articles)   A 
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Skepticism articles)   GA 
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Skepticism articles)   B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Skepticism articles)   C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Skepticism articles)   Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Skepticism articles)   Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Skepticism articles)   FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Skepticism articles)   List 

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Book (for Wikipedia books; adds pages to Category:Book-Class Skepticism articles)   Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Skepticism articles)   Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Skepticism articles)   Disambig 
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Skepticism articles)   Draft 
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Skepticism articles)   File 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Skepticism articles)   Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Skepticism articles)   Project 
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Skepticism articles)   Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Skepticism articles)   NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Skepticism articles)   ??? 

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Skepticism articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

Quality scaleEdit

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
  FA  The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Charles Darwin
(as of September 2015)
  FL  The article has attained featured list status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
(as of September 2015)
  A  The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
  GA  The article has attained good article status, having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article criteria:

A good article is:

  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Merseyside Skeptics Society
(as of September 2015)
  B  The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Susan Gerbic
(as of September 2015)
  C  The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations, such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Repressed memory
(as of September 2015)
  Start  An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Holistic veterinary medicine
(as of September 2015)
  Stub  A very basic description of the topic. Can be well-written, but may also have significant content issues.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short; but, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.
 Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Occult science
(as of September 2015)
  List  Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of skeptical podcasts
(as of September 2015)

Importance assessmentEdit

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

{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Skepticism articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Skepticism articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Skepticism articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Skepticism articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance Skepticism articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Skepticism articles)  ??? 

The importance parameter should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Importance scaleEdit

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Scientific skepticism
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Steven Novella
 Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Bates method

Requesting an assessmentEdit

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

Assessment logEdit

Skepticism articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

August 4, 2020Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

  • Acupressure (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from High-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Adam Savage (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Julia Belluz (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mae-Wan Ho (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

AssessedEdit

RemovedEdit

August 3, 2020Edit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

August 2, 2020Edit

ReassessedEdit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Skepticism/Assessment&oldid=937845329"