Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gender Studies
articles		 Importance
None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 4 4
Good article GA 1 1
B 33 33
Start 79 79
Stub 49 49
Assessed 166 166
Unassessed 569 569
Total 735 735
Project
Gender Studies
⇒ Project page
⇒ Talk page
⇒ Notice Board
⇒ Translation
⇒ Assessment
⇒ Templates
⇒ Collaboration
⇒ Feminism Task Force
⇒ Countering Systemic Gender Bias
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.

Contents

[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:

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
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 additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
Featured list FL
{{FL-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
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 reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). 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 acceptable. 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, or 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}}		 Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage 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. Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and 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] Log

Gender Studies
articles		 Importance
None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 4 4
Good article GA 1 1
B 33 33
Start 79 79
Stub 49 49
Assessed 166 166
Unassessed 569 569
Total 735 735

All the articles which have been assessed by this project can be found here.