Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment/Nifboy

nifboy's PPI Assessment Page

nifboy is classified as a Wikipedia expert.

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?

Permanent residence (United States) (1 July 2010)

Used this version.

• Comprehensiveness 6 (A current description of the process, distinctly missing anything else).
• Sourcing 4 (Government sources/links are good, but third party sources/links are a mixed bag with dead links, unreliable sources, and immigration "services" websites that on their face look like spam.)
• Neutrality 2 (Factual, but lacking in third party analysis/opinions of the process and suffers from recentism.)
• Readability 1 (Mostly a loose collection of facts, without much unity.)
• Illustrations 2 (I don't know what else to illustrate the article with)
• Formatting 1 (Tables are not for paragraphs of prose)
• Total 16 (A pretty standard result of mass-collaboration without much in the way of organization or a sense of unity; the topic itself seems to have a muddled scope, being about a citizenship status, the process of attaining that status, and also the document verifying the same.).

Executive Order 11478 (1 July 2010)

Used this version.

• Comprehensiveness 2 (One for a definition, one for the revision history and quote)
• Sourcing 2 (Links to the full current version, the full original version, and two revisions. Normally I would consider this sufficient for the current lack of text, but this version fails minimum sourcing standards as defined by notability)
• Neutrality 1 (Missing the major POV of third-party analysis. One point because its bias is at least grounded in the word of the law instead of speculation or nothing at all.)
• Readability 2 (Given that it's exactly one paragraph of original prose, it's sufficient but Wikipedia's lead style actually works against it here).
• Illustrations 0 (duh)
• Formatting 2 (Not sure I agree with the LGBT rights template but otherwise a great example of a dressed-up stub).
• Total 9 (It's a stub).

Asylum in the United States (1 July 2010)

this version.

• Comprehensiveness 7 (Missing historical/political POVs, otherwise very fleshed out despite a lack of sources)
• Sourcing 1 (Sources only the table of facts, and external links are mostly dead)
• Neutrality 2 (Missing historical/political POVs, though lobbying does get a brief mention)
• Readability 2 (Readable in portions, less readable in others)
• Illustrations 0 (Chart is copyrighted and potentially replacable by a free version and therefore I am not counting it)
• Formatting 2 (No major complaints here)
• Total 14 (Needs sourced badly; the grand majority of the article was written by March 2007 and it shows.)

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (1 July 2010)

this version.

• Comprehensiveness 8 (Key provisions could stand to be fleshed out, but not being familiar with what an article on law should look like, this has all the components I could think of)
• Sourcing 3 (Sourced: Lead, pros, cons, history. Not sourced: Provisions, impact after the bill was passed)
• Neutrality 2 (Ignoring the last two sections, this would be a fine example of showing all POVs. However, the late additions are overly opinionated)
• Readability 2 (Last two sections are not nearly as good as the rest)
• Illustrations 1 (Eh, only marginally relevant.)
• Formatting 1 (Not liking either of the bullet lists here)
• Total 17 (An article stable in 2008 marred by two late section additions that desperately need attention.)

Missouri Plan (1 July 2010)

this version.

• Comprehensiveness 5 (A factual description, a description of the Californian version, and a set of criticisms)
• Sourcing 3 (Four broken external links, four broken references including this which points to some spam page or another. Remainder of sources look okay)
• Neutrality 0 (Goes from a neutral tone to a negative tone midway through, stating multiple criticisms but no actual benefits. Talk page confirms the criticisms section has known POV problems)
• Readability 2 (The word "elect" here is ambiguous, and should more often specify whether the word means "elected under something other than the Missouri plan", "re-elected for a term as judge under the Missouri plan", or "selected for the first time under the Missouri plan". Prose is otherwise serviceable but not great; the explanation is actually quite followable.)
• Illustrations 0 (duh)
• Formatting 2 (A little heavy on the bold, but otherwise fine.)
• Total 12 (Cutting the criticisms section would trade comprehensiveness for neutrality in roughly equal amounts, which is probably why it's still there despite having been removed previously)

Operation Green Sweep (1 July 2010)

this version.

• Comprehensiveness: 3 (Play-by-play of a military operation)
• Sourcing 4 (cite to Washington Post is behind a paywall and is unfortunately tied to an extraordinary claim, cannot verify. LATimes is fine. Globalsecurity.org only partially verifies the sentence it's tied to. Most of the rest is copied from the FMSO article, which doesn't claim copyright (I checked) but is not sufficiently attributed for how many facts are pulled from it. Also contains speculation ("most likely due to"). All that having been said, external links make up for a lot of the weaknesses in the current sourcing)
• Neutrality 2 (Overemphasis on the Foreign Military Studies Office article, language that might be neutral in military contexts but not here ("Eradication", "Converged"), mentions the infantry unit served in Panama for no discernable reason, etc. It's factual, but written from a primarily military perspective. Despite all that, I was unable to tell at a glance exactly which way it was biased (noting that military POV is not the same as a pro-military POV) and the links at least provide a marginally better overall picture.)
• Readability 2 (Play-by-play nature doesn't string together well, feels choppy.)
• Illustrations 0 (duh)
• Formatting 2 (Sufficient)
• Total 13 (A near-stub on an unpopular civilian military operation. Its NPOV is wobbly but even that much is an achievement given the subject).

Round 2

Assessment request 2, all from 1 October 2010 or there about. There are a couple of rereviews, hopefully those will be fast.

Great Society

[1]

• Comprehensiveness: 7/10 (deals very little with the program as a whole, instead focusing in on each of its individual parts. While the subject lends itself to this, it's unclear where the article should start and where it should end)
• Sourcing: 3/6 (Has a bibliography and about a dozen inline citations to web sources, two of which are dead links. Lots of facts need to be cited to the source it came from.)
• Neutrality: 1/3 (Factually-oriented but missing explicit third-party analysis of the program, as well as public reaction.)
• Readability: 1/3 (sections are very repetitive and dense with loosely-related facts)
• Illustrations: 2/2 (Relevant and about as close to decent illustration as a typical public policy article will get.)
• Formatting: 1/2 (The first four sections are a timeline that should be grouped together as such. One-paragraph sections are generally discouraged. Probably ought to be reorganized as a parent article using summary style.)
• Total: 15/26 (An article that was pretty decent in 2006 but doesn't reflect much in the way of current practice in terms of organization or coordination with other articles, particularly Lyndon B. Johnson)

Equal Access to COBRA Act

[2]

• Comprehensiveness: 1/10 (One sentence)
• Sourcing: 1/6 (One source to a local LGBT newssite, fails WP:N in its current form)
• Neutrality: 0/3 (source = one viewpoint)
• Readability: 0/3 (Its one sentence fails to clarify anything even so basic as what country the bill was introduced in)
• Illustrations: 0/2 (duh)
• Formatting: 2/2 (typical stub stuff)
• Total: 4/26 (a stub)

Illegal immigrant population of the United States

[3]

• Comprehensiveness: 3/10 (focused almost exclusively on methodology rather than actually sorting through the numbers)
• Sourcing: 2/6 (despite the numerous reliable (albiet slightly outdated) sources it doesn't account for the sheer bulk of the claims made in the article)
• Neutrality: 0/3 (Overly opinionated about the validity of these methodologies without sourcing its critique, focused exclusively on recent years)
• Readability: 0/3 (nigh-impenetrable prose filled with seemingly-random numbers and facts)
• Illustrations: 2/2 (only part of the article that makes sense)
• Formatting: 1/2 (one-paragraph sections
• Total: 8/26 (was split out from Illegal immigration to the United States back in 2007 and has since languished without attention or purpose. The former article seems to have gone on without it, with summary drastically better than the article it points to).

Public Citizen

[4]

• Comprehensiveness: 4/10 (an admittingly impressive few lists of... stuff... but this is admittingly not a fair score because I hate this article SO MUCH)
• Sourcing: 1/6 (one source to its founding date, several links to the official website, and that's it.)
• Neutrality: 0/3 (much of the current content was added by User:HSDOnline, who describes himself as "the communications assistant at Public Citizen", a self-admitted COI, never mind the actual text of the article. after adding the content back in October '09, it was removed shortly afterward and remained so until an IP re-added it in June '10.)
• Readability: 0/3 (reads like a press piece)
• Illustrations: 1/2 (as good an illustration as any, although one deleted image scores against it)
• Formatting: 0/2 (numerous short sections, use of bullets where prose would be drastically better, etc.)
• Total: 0/26 (KILL IT WITH FIRE)

War on Drugs

[5]

• Comprehensiveness: 6/10 (Article has issues defining its scope, and does precious little to outline any causes. Until its scope is adequately defined it cannot be said to be at all comprehensive and is until then a loosely related set of summaries of other articles)
• Sourcing: 4/6 (despite the impressive list of references actual sourcing of facts and "facts" is a little spotty.)
• Neutrality: 0/3 (Interrupts the history with a paragraph taking a swing at hemp restrictions. The section on arrests, while relevant, doesn't do a good job explaining why it is relevant. Foreign policy opens with criticism instead of a neutral description. Needs to do a better job explaining the relevancy of certain facts, such as the human rights records of military agencies. Spends roughly every third sentence bashing US policy. Despite the amount of evidence amassed, it is overall a wholly unconvincing piece because of the tone it takes with US policy.)
• Readability: 1/3 (jumps from thought to thought without much connection.)
• Illustrations: 2/2 (No complaints)
• Formatting: 1/2 (Lead is a little sparse, history is too focused on discrete facts, some sections are only a paragraph.)
• Total: 14/26 (needs a defined scope and a rewrite with an eye towards neutrality instead of away from it)

Asylum in the United States

[6] Copied above assessment; diff doesn't change enough to change my opinion.

• Comprehensiveness 7 (Missing historical/political POVs, otherwise very fleshed out despite a lack of sources)
• Sourcing 1 (Sources only the table of facts, and external links are mostly dead)
• Neutrality 2 (Missing historical/political POVs, though lobbying does get a brief mention)
• Readability 2 (Readable in portions, less readable in others)
• Illustrations 0 (Chart is copyrighted and potentially replacable by a free version and therefore I am not counting it)
• Formatting 2 (No major complaints here)
• Total 14 (Needs sourced badly; the grand majority of the article was written by March 2007 and it shows.)

Operation Green Sweep

[7]

(as a repeat, with the only difference being the addition of Category:Article Feedback Pilot)

• Comprehensiveness: 3 (Play-by-play of a military operation)
• Sourcing 4 (cite to Washington Post is behind a paywall and is unfortunately tied to an extraordinary claim, cannot verify. LATimes is fine. Globalsecurity.org only partially verifies the sentence it's tied to. Most of the rest is copied from the FMSO article, which doesn't claim copyright (I checked) but is not sufficiently attributed for how many facts are pulled from it. Also contains speculation ("most likely due to"). All that having been said, external links make up for a lot of the weaknesses in the current sourcing)
• Neutrality 2 (Overemphasis on the Foreign Military Studies Office article, language that might be neutral in military contexts but not here ("Eradication", "Converged"), mentions the infantry unit served in Panama for no discernable reason, etc. It's factual, but written from a primarily military perspective. Despite all that, I was unable to tell at a glance exactly which way it was biased (noting that military POV is not the same as a pro-military POV) and the links at least provide a marginally better overall picture.)
• Readability 2 (Play-by-play nature doesn't string together well, feels choppy.)
• Illustrations 0 (duh)
• Formatting 2 (Sufficient)
• Total 13 (A near-stub on an unpopular civilian military operation. Its NPOV is wobbly but even that much is an achievement given the subject).