Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion/Article improvement drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collaborations

Core topics
Biography
Arts & entertainment

Alternative Music
James Bond
Novels
Games & sports

Baseball
Professional wrestling
Rugby union
Geography & places

Australia
India
Peru
Government & politics

Taxation
U.S. Congress
Religion

Anglicanism
Catholic
Education

Universities
Science & technology

Birds
Mammals
Mathematics
Medicine
Molecular and
Cellular Biology
Plants NEW!
Pharmacology
Robotics NEW!
Science
Space
U.S. Roads
Miscellaneous

Inactive collaborations

v • d • e

This is the Article Improvement Drive for WikiProject Abortion. This department works to improve the quality of articles within the scope of our WikiProject by holding organized collaborations with the goal of promoting an article to GA or FA status.

Contents

[edit] Introduction

[edit] How to nominate

If you would like to nominate an article within the scope of WikiProject Abortion for collaboration, please copy-and-paste the following template to the bottom of the nominations list, and fill in the applicable values, such as the article's title and the reason why you believe it needs collaborative improvement. Please do not nominate articles that have already achieved Featured Article status (unless there is a serious concern that the article needs attention in order to main its FA quality) or articles which are currently in the midst of an edit war. As this is currently a small WikiProject, collaborations will be done on an indefinite basis, so there is as of yet no need to set a starting or completion date.

===[[Article title]]===
; Support:
# ~~~~

; Comments:
* (put your reason for nomination) ~~~~

----

After you have finished posting your nomination, please add {{AbortionAIDNom}} to the top of the article's talk page, so that other editors can be made aware of its candidacy and lend it their support.

[edit] How to vote

Please note that it is not possible to cast an opposing vote. If you do not support a nomination, simply refrain from voting, and either vote for or nominate an alternative article. Add your vote of support by copying "# ~~~~" and adding it after the last voter's username. It is acceptable to vote for more than one of the current nominations.

[edit] How a collaboration is determined

The article which has received the most supporting votes will be selected as the next collaboration. Articles that do not make the cut this time around can be renominated again and thus may be eligible for collaboration at some time in the future. The template {{AbortionAIDCurrent}} will be placed at the top of the talk page of the current collaboration to alert editors to the ongoing process.

[edit] Current nominations

[edit] Religion and abortion

Support
  1. Severa (!!!) 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Comments
  • This article has been neglected for a long time and I think it could benefit from some collaborative attention. There are a number of gaps in this article's coverage which remain to be filled. Severa (!!!) 03:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    I see the article is currently assessed as B-class. Would it make sense to push for GA status, or A-class? I guess I'm not entirely clear on how GA status fits into the whole assessment scheme. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Good Articles, like Featured Articles, need to undergo a formal review before they can officially be deemed GA quality. All the other classes (Stub, Start, B, A) can be chosen independenly by editors using the assessment criteria. I'm sorry if you were already aware of this all. But, anyway, I don't think it matters which class we aim for — if we aim for A-class, we can still formally nominate the article for GA. I just think that, given the subject of this project, we should start small. GA is a more realistic goal than FA at this time. -Severa (!!!) 09:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    Right, B-class to FA is a big jump. I guess if one tries to get an article up to A-class, a GA review can be a useful barometer of how one is doing. What do you see as being the biggest gaps? -GTBacchus(talk) 15:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    There is a lot of inconsistency in the level of coverage. The majority of coverage is devoted to Abrahamic religions, and, as such, the sections on Dharmic faiths read as very short and perfunctory. I also think that the structure of the article lacks flow. -Severa (!!!) 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Templates

  • {{AbortionAIDNom}} - Placed on the discussion page of nominees for collaboration.
  • {{AbortionAIDCurrent}} - Placed on the discussion page of the current collaboration.

[edit] See also