Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Project Gender Studies ⇒ Project page ⇒ Talk page ⇒ Notice Board ⇒ To Do List ⇒ Translation ⇒ Assessment ⇒ Peer Review ⇒ Templates ⇒ Collaboration Category:WikiProject Gender Studies

One of the proposed tasks of Project Gender Studies is to assess the quality of Wikipedia's Gender Studies articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to help in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. This would play a role in the WP:1.0 program. At the moment this Project is still considering whether to adopt this policy or not, please discuss on the talk page.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Gender Studies}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Gender Studies articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

[edit] How to Assess

An article's assessment is generated on its talkpage from the class parameter in {{WikiProject Gender Studies}} the Project's banner. To add the banner, add the following to its talkpage:

{{WikiProject Gender Studies | class= }}

To add an assessment, simply fill in the class parameter with the appropriate letters. The following values may be used:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Gender Studies articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as featured articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Gender Studies articles;
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Gender Studies articles; should only be used for articles that are currently listed as good articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Gender Studies articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Gender Studies articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Gender Studies articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Gender Studies pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Gender Studies articles. The criteria for the different classes is below.

[edit] Discussing / Disputing ratings

Please use this subpage's talk page to question and/or discuss article ratings.

[edit] Quality scale

It is suggested that Project Gender Studies use the same criteria for grading articles as set out by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, as set out below.

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible.	Supernova (as of February 2007)
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.	Durian (as of March 2007)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.	Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.	Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.	Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & references.
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.	Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)