Wikipedia:Article assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This Wikipedia page is currently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, you should ask for broader input, for instance at the village pump.

Shortcut: WP:AA

Article assessment (AA) is a weekly process by which articles are submitted for rating under a given topic. The assessment of an article gives praise for good aspects and constructive criticism of any weaker areas.

Article assessment is a two week process. The first week is for accepting new submissions under the given theme, and the second week is for the assessment. Topics do overlap, so any given week sees the assessment of the current topic and acceptance of submissions for the next one.

Current topic Hugo Award-winning works Any science fiction novel that has won the Hugo Award Undergoing assessment

Next topic War and military events Any War and military event Accepting submissions

To submit an article go to relevant subpage, linked to above, and add it to the bottom of the list.

Submissions must be of a reasonable size, and therefore stubs are not acceptable. Featured articles and current featured article candidates (and featured lists if relevant) are not allowed.

[edit] Ways to contribute

There are several ways in which you can contribute:

1. Add a submission for next week's topic
2. Assess some submissions for this week's topic
3. Expand and improve one of the submissions, or look at the older assessments to see if all the problems have been rectified
4. Add a suggestion for a future topic

Contents 1 Ways to contribute 2 Assessments 2.1 Archive of past topics 2.1.1 African countries 2.1.2 1980s comedy films 2.1.3 Extinct mammals 2.1.4 Natural disasters 2.2 Suggestions 3 Assessing an article 3.1 Coverage and factuality 3.2 Writing style 3.3 Structure 3.4 Aesthetics 3.5 Overall

[edit] Assessments

The current topic under assessment is shown above.

[edit] Archive of past topics

Past assessment topics are listed here with the articles that received the highest and lowest assessments.

[edit] African countries

15 articles were assessed. The quality of article is pretty good, with an overall assessment of 7. References were a problem for most articles.

Highest rated:

• Sudan (Overall: 8.5)
• Egypt (Overall: 8)

Lowest rated:

• Côte d'Ivoire (Overall: 5.5)
• Senegal (Overall: 5)

[edit] 1980s comedy films

22 articles were assessed. Lots of average articles, with some excellent ones and a couple of fairly poor ones. References were a problem for most articles.

Highest rated:

• Back to the Future (Overall: 9)
• This Is Spinal Tap (Overall: 9)

Lowest rated:

• Honey, I Shrunk the Kids (Overall: 4)
• A Room with a View (film) (Overall: 4)

[edit] Extinct mammals

11 articles were assessed. Most articles were of the same general quality, with no outstanding ones but no particular poor ones either.

Highest rated:

• Mammoth (Overall: 7)
• Quagga (Overall: 7)

Lowest rated:

• Australopithecus (Overall: 5)
• Caribbean Monk Seal (Overall: 5)
• Portuguese Ibex (Overall: 5)

[edit] Natural disasters

32 articles were assessed. There were some excellent articles and some poor ones.

Highest rated:

• 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (Overall: 9)
• 2005 Atlantic hurricane season (Overall: 9)
• Black Death (Overall: 9)
• Hurricane Floyd (Overall: 9)
• Hurricane Iniki (Overall: 9)

Lowest rated:

• Emergency preparedness (Overall: 4)
• Nisqually earthquake (Overall: 3)
• 2005 Miyagi earthquake (Overall: 2)

[edit] Suggestions

If you would like to suggest a topic for assessment please visit the suggestions page.

[edit] Assessing an article

Evaluations are conducted on the relevant subpage during the assessment week for that topic. Each article is assessed with a score of 1 to 10 under five categories, as listed below. The overall score is the most important of the five.

A few points to remember:

• You do not have to assess every article - just one will do.
• If an article is improved after you have assessed it you are welcome to update your comments and ratings.
• It is bad form to assess an article that you have contributed to significantly, but you are not exempt from doing so - just try and avoid bias.

[edit] Coverage and factuality

How complete an article is - good articles should not have major omissions.

How factual the article is, as shown by:

• The use of inline citations.
• The use of multiple sources where possible, including both online sources and print sources (for example books, magazines and newspaper articles).

[edit] Writing style

How good the prose is, including:

• Spelling, grammar and punctuation.
• Explanation of all the technical terms.
• Clarity, brevity and that indefinable flair that keeps the reader interested in the topic.

[edit] Structure

How well structured the article is both in itself and with regards to other articles, including:

• The size of the lead.
• The use of sections and heading levels.
• The positioning of images, templates and tables.
• How well the article links to other articles and how they link to it.

[edit] Aesthetics

How nice the article looks, based on:

• Location and 'look' of images
• Style of tables.
• Attractiveness of included templates.

[edit] Overall

How good the article is overall. You can give this as an average of the other four if you wish.