Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment/JayJasper

JayJasper's PPI Assessment Page

JayJasper is classified as a Wikipedia expert.

Rubric

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

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)

• Comprehensiveness 2 (Gives very little overview or history of the the subject, but rather focuses on a particular time period, which makes the title misleading)
• Sourcing 3 (Fairly well-sourced, but several statements are left unsourced)
• Neutrality 1 (Seems strongly biased against the Reagan Administration's policies, although several statements maintain NPOV tone)
• Readability 1 (Likely to be confusing or insufficient to readers who come to the article seeking a broader, encyclopedic overview of the subject)
• Illustrations 0 (No illustrations, but one dead image link)
• Formatting 1 (Decently formatted overall, but lead fails to adequately summarize the contents)
• Total 8- Stub (Vastly more content is needed. Needs cleanup for neutrality and comprehensive lead section, as well as more sourcing)

 Done

Brown v. Board of Education (1 July 2010)

• Comprehensiveness 9 (Vast amount of relevent information. Well presented in terms of timeline, and well detailed)
• Sourcing 6 (Extensively and reliably sourced)
• Neutrality 3 (Consistently written in NPOV tone, no apparent flaws in this regard)
• Readability 3 (Written in a clear, concise and reader-friendly fashion)
• Illustrations 2
• Formatting 1 (Overall well-formatted, though there are a few "bare" citation links and a few book/publication titles not italicized)
• Total 24 (GA candidate)

 Done

Illegal immigrant population of the United States (1 July 2010)

• Comprehensiveness 5 (Seems to be more about the difficulty in gathering data than it is an overview of the subject - particularly in the lead section)
• Sourcing 4 (Several reliable sources provided, but also contains unsourced statements and paragraphs)
• Neutrality 2 (Mostly NPOV, but arguably gives undue weight to the "residual method"
• Readability 2 (Overall well-written but fails to give the reader a clear defintion of illegal immigration and why its population is of significance to the U.S.)
• Illustrations 1 (Good overall, but one of the charts is akwardly formatted)
• Formatting 1 (Layout is good, but there are a number of punctuation errors, as well as shortage of wikilinks. Several publications are unitalicized as well.
• Total 15 (Start or C)

 Done

Medicare (United States) (1 July 2010)

• Comprehensiveness 9 (Great overview and in-depth history)
• Sourcing 4 (Extensively and reliably sourced on balance, but there a few "citation needed" tags)
• Neutrality 1 (NPOV tone throughout; however, long "criciticism" section without a corresponding "support" section gives the appearance of bias)
• Readability 3 (Reader-friendly style and tone)
• Illustrations 2 (Overall good, but the type on some of the charts is blurry)
• Formatting 2 (Very well formatted)
• Total 21 (B)

 Done

Missouri Plan (1 July 2010)

• Comprehensiveness 6 (Good all-around overview, but seems a bit lacking in content)
• Sourcing 3 (Reliable sources provided, but there is an enitre section - as well as several statements - without citations)
• Neutrality 1 (Gives undue weight to criticisms of the subject)
• Readability 2 (Overall reader-friendly in style, though some sentences are unencyclopedic in tone)
• Illustrations 0
• Formatting 1 (General layout is good, but citation links lack a consistent formatting style. Also needs more wikilinks and proper formatting of publication titles.
• Total 13 (Start)

 Done

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (1 July 2010)

• Comprehensiveness 6 (Good overview, but leaves the impression of incompleteness )
• Sourcing 4 (Well done overall, but contains unsourced content)
• Neutrality 3 (No obvious problems here)
• Readability 2 (Mostly well written but has awkward layout, and some sentences are unencyclopedic in style)
• Illustrations 1 (Good use of charts, though the type in top chart is blurry)
• Formatting 0 (Awkward layout - needs sections with headers; several citation links are improperly formatted and messy)
• Total 16 (C)

 Done

War on drugs (1 July 2010)

• Comprehensiveness
• Sourcing
• Neutrality
• Readability
• Illustrations
• Formatting
• Total

Universal health care (1 July 2010)

• Comprehensiveness 6 (Good overview, but contains a lot of "bite-size" info, and lead section needs expansion)
• Sourcing 3 (Good overall, but contains unsourced statements and paragraphs; also has a few citations that are of questionable reliablity)
• Neutrality 1 (Contains several statements that read like ads, brochures, or commentary)
• Readability 1 (Tone is inconsistent, and some statements are less than coherent)
• Illustrations 1
• Formatting 1 (Good layout, but looks messy in places)
• Total 13 (C)

 Done

Assessment 1, Part 2

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. Sorry the article titles don't link to the correct article version, I will do this in the future.

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 link

• Comprehensiveness 3 (Decent overview, but seems capsulized)
• Sourcing 2 (Undersourced)
• Neutrality 1 (Mostly NPOV, but why an entire on Ted Kennedy's involvement? Weren't there others who played a pivotal role? Seems like undue weight)
• Readability 2 (Well-written overall)
• Illustrations 0 (n/a)
• Formatting 3 (Good layout, well formatted)
• Total 11

 Done

Executive Order 11478 link

• Comprehensiveness 1 (Definitely a Stub)
• Sourcing 2 (Only 1 citation. Yeah, it's a very article, but....)
• Neutrality 1 (NPOV tone, but then it's only one paragraph and a long quote)
• Readability 1 (Readable, but.....see above comments)
• Illustrations 0 (n/a)
• Formatting 1 (See previous comments)
• Total 6

 Done

Asylum in the United States link

• Comprehensiveness 6 (Overall extensive, but has sections that seem capulized)
• Sourcing 1 (Very undersourced)
• Neutrality 2 (Mostly NPOV, but contains an entire section that appears to be [[WP:OR|original research)
• Readability 1 (Would benefit from consistency in sytle)
• Illustrations 1 (Has a helpful chart)
• Formatting 1 (Not bad, but "See also" generally comes before Reference section)
• Total 12

 Done

National Partnership for Reinventing Government link

• Comprehensiveness 1 (Definitely Stub)
• Sourcing 0 (No citations)
• Neutrality 2 (Neutral tone, but then it only consists of about six sentences)
• Readability 1 (Readable, but....well, see above)
• Illustrations 0 (
• Formatting 1 ("Other similar commissions" section should be a "See also" section at the end of the text)
• Total 5

 Done

Operation Green Sweep link

• Comprehensiveness 4 (Not quite a stub, but leaves the reader wanting more)
• Sourcing 3 (Good sources provided, but has 2 entire paragraphs without citations)
• Neutrality 1 (Seems biased against the agents)
• Readability 1 (Heavier on numbers and statistics than on actual content)
• Illustrations 0 (n/a)
• Formatting 1 (Would greatly benefit from the addition of sections, also contains bare URLs)
• Total 10

 Done

State school link

• Comprehensiveness 7 (Extensive overall, but has sections that would benefit from expansion)
• Sourcing 1(Direly undersourced)
• Neutrality 1 (Seems biased toward U.S.)
• Readability 2 (Good overall)
• Illustrations 1 (Good overall, but 1 or 2 images need better resolution)
• Formatting 1 (Not bad, but has a few visible formatting errors in the text)
• Total 13

 Done

Brown v. Board of Education link

• Comprehensiveness9
• Sourcing 5
• Neutrality 3
• Readability 3
• Illustrations 1
• Formatting 1
• Total 22 (See my comments on this article in Part 1. More or less the same. Don't see a substantial difference.)

 Done

Illegal immigrant population of the United States link

• Comprehensiveness 5 (About halfway there)
• Sourcing 4 (Mostly well-sourced, but has too many unsourced statements and paragraphs)
• Neutrality2 (Overall NPOV)
• Readability 2 (Overall reader-friendly)
• Illustrations 1 (Awkwardly formatted chart)
• Formatting 1 (Short on relevent wikilinks)
• Total 15

 Done

War on Drugs link

• Comprehensiveness 8 (Greatly in-depth and informative, though History" and "Legality" sections (particularly the latter) need expansion.)
• Sourcing 4 (Extensively & reliably sourced overall, but contains several uncited statements)
• Neutrality 2 (Mostly NPOV in tone, but contains a few unsourced statements that seem to promoting a particular viewpoint -- e.g. "There are a vast number of citizens who believe that...." in the "Alternatives...." section. What constitutes "vast" and where's the citation?)
• Readability 2 (Could benefit from a few wording tweaks here and there, but overall reader-friendly)
• Illustrations 1 (Well-illustrated, though a few images would benefit from greater resolution)
• Formatting 2 (Solid layout, but contains a few bare URLs, minor punctuation errors)
• Total 19

 Done

(This article seems to be problematic for assessment, I left comments about it on the assessment talk page. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC))