Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Rational Skepticism
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1
A 1 1
Good article GA 1 1
B 3 4 4 11
Start 3 6 5 1 1 16
Stub
Assessed 6 11 9 3 1 30
Unassessed 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 6 11 9 3 1 30

Welcome to the assessment department of the Rational Skepticism WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Rational Skepticism related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Rational Skepticism}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Rational Skepticism articles by quality and Category:Rational Skepticism articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Rational Skepticism WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? 
Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Rational Skepticism}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Rational Skepticism| ... | class=??? | ...}}
Featured article FA
A
Good article GA
B
Start
Stub
???
Needed

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:


Template
Dab
Cat
NA

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed-Class Rational Skepticism articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Rational Skepticism articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article 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)
Good article 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)

[edit] Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{Rational Skepticism}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Rational Skepticism| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

[edit] Importance scale

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about Rational Skepticism. A reader who is not involved in the field of Rational Skepticism will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. Scientific skepticism
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding Rational Skepticism. A reader who is not involved in the field of Rational Skepticism will have a reasonable level of familiarity with the subject matter, but may need clarifications for some of the more technical terminology. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, however with more specificity and technical terms than the Top-importance articles.
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of Rational Skepticism. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand Rational Skepticism, such as specific aspects of Rational Skepticism. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in Rational Skepticism will be rated in this level.
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Rational Skepticism. Few readers outside the Rational Skepticism field or that are not adherents to it may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of Rational Skepticism, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of Rational Skepticism.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

[edit] Assessment log

Rational Skepticism articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


Archive This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.


[edit] March 30, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 26, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 24, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 22, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 20, 2007

[edit] March 18, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 16, 2007

[edit] March 14, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 12, 2007

[edit] March 10, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 8, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 6, 2007

[edit] March 4, 2007

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Rational_Skepticism_Assessment_f223.html"