Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment/Alpha Quadrant

Alpha Quadrant's PPI Assessment Page

edit

Alpha Quadrant is classified as a Wikipedia expert.

Rubric

edit
Assessment area Scoring methods Score
Comprehensiveness Score based on how fully the article covers significant aspects of the topic. 1-10
Sourcing Score based on adequacy of inline citations and quality of sources relative to what is available. 0-6
Neutrality Score based on adherence to the Neutral Point of View policy. Scores decline rapidly with any problems with neutrality. 0-3
Readability Score based on how readable and well-written the article is. 0-3
Formatting Score based on quality of the article's layout and basic adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style 0-2
Illustrations Score based on how adequately the article is illustrated, within the constraints of acceptable copyright status. 0-2
Total 1-26

Assessment 1, part 1

edit

The purpose of this evaluation in not to gauge variability in article quality, but to look at the metric itself. How consistent is this assessment tool? and Is there a difference in scores between subject area expert assessment and Wikipedian article assessment?

Drug Policy of the United States (1 July 2010)

edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 4
  • Sourcing = 4
  • Neutrality = 3
  • Readability = 2
  • Illustrations = 1
  • Formatting = 1
  • Total = 15

Brown v. Board of Education (1 July 2010)

edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 8
  • Sourcing = 6
  • Neutrality = 3
  • Readability = 3
  • Illustrations = 2
  • Formatting = 2
  • Total = 24
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 7
  • Sourcing = 5
  • Neutrality = 2
  • Readability = 2
  • Illustrations = 2
  • Formatting = 2
  • Total = 20
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 9
  • Sourcing = 5
  • Neutrality = 3
  • Readability = 3
  • Illustrations = 2
  • Formatting = 2
  • Total = 24
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 5
  • Sourcing = 5
  • Neutrality = 1
  • Readability = 5
  • Illustrations = 0
  • Formatting = 0
  • Total = 14
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 3
  • Sourcing = 4
  • Neutrality = 2
  • Readability = 1
  • Illustrations = 0
  • Formatting = 0
  • Total = 10
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 8
  • Sourcing = 6
  • Neutrality = 2
  • Readability = 2
  • Illustrations = 2
  • Formatting = 2
  • Total = 22
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 6
  • Sourcing = 5
  • Neutrality = 1
  • Readability = 1
  • Illustrations = 1
  • Formatting = 1
  • Total = 15

Assessment 1, Part 2

edit

Assessment request 2, please use article version from 1 October 2010. There are a couple of rereviews, hopefully those will go fast for you. This set will tie up the first assessment, which tests the quantitative metric and compares Wikipedian assessment to expert assessment.


edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 4
  • Sourcing = 3
  • Neutrality = 3
  • Readability = 3
  • Illustrations = 1
  • Formatting = 1
  • Total = 15
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 2
  • Sourcing = 1
  • Neutrality = 2
  • Readability = 1
  • Illustrations = 0
  • Formatting = 0
  • Total = 6
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 8
  • Sourcing = 3
  • Neutrality = 2
  • Readability = 2
  • Illustrations = 1
  • Formatting = 1
  • Total = 17
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 2
  • Sourcing = 2
  • Neutrality = 3
  • Readability = 3
  • Illustrations = 0
  • Formatting = 1
  • Total = 11
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 2
  • Sourcing = 4
  • Neutrality = 1
  • Readability = 3
  • Illustrations = 0
  • Formatting = 1
  • Total = 11
edit
  • Comprehensiveness = 6
  • Sourcing = 2
  • Neutrality = 2
  • Readability = 1
  • Illustrations = 3
  • Formatting = 0
  • Total = 14
edit
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total
edit
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total
edit
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total