Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject
Medicine
Navigation
Project page talk
Manual of Style talk
Departments
 → Assessment talk
 → FA review talk
Open tasks
 → Collaboration of the Week talk
 → Nominations for deletion
 → Pages needing attention
 → Needing expert attention
 → Requested articles
Stub sorting talk
Categories
 → Project
 → Articles by quality
 → Articles by importance
Trophy box talk
Participants talk
Portal talk
edit · changes


Contents

[edit] Significant issues ??

"An A-Class Article is very well-written, nearly comprehensive and approaching excellence, but may still have significant issues."  ???? I hope not! And that's at odds with the Version 1.0 description of A class, which should be even more important for medical articles.

GA, A, and FA-class should all conform to WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. thanks for pointing it out.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment aids

Would it be difficult to sort pages by time to last edit? Pages not edited for years may need deletion or merging elsewhere. Pages edited recently may need reassessment. --Una Smith 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MEDMOS compliance wording is wrong

All articles under the medicine project should try to adhere to Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). An article is unlikely to attract a grade above B class if it does not confirm to style guideline. This wording is wrong. There is nothing at WP:WIAGA that obligates a GA to comply with MEDMOS; we need to explicitly state that articles should comply for GA and must comply for A-class. (We don't impose GA requirements, but we can impose A-class requirements for the Project.) On the other hand, FAs must comply with Project guidelines, per WP:WIAFA; this is already a requirement of WIAFA. Also, confirm is the wrong word, should be conform or follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA wording for this is: Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level. I think there is some room for this kind of wording and there is enough difference between unlikely and complete negativity to put this emphasis.--Countincr ( T@lk ) 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MANY incorrect assessments

I just noticed that the chart shows a large jump in Medical good articles, even though there have been no recent medical articles at WP:GAC. Several editors are assessing articles as GA that have not been through WP:GAC. Now, every article assessed as GA needs to be double-checked, as many of them are wrong. I know the A-class and FA-class are still correct, as those numbers were 4 and 32 before this thing was put in place, but several GA assessments are wrong and need to be located and re-assessed back to B-class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I found and reversed five of them, but I don't know if that's everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A/GA difference unclear - please clarify

Dear all,

After trying to understand the Project Medicine rating scheme, I'm left with doubts about the separation of the A and GA categories. The other categories are reasonably ordered by quality: stub < start < b < a/ga?? < fa. Could you explain the difference between GA (good article) and A class? Is A better than GA? Does A also require a formal peer review process?

Thanks and best regards, Jakob Suckale 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer is, A class is better than GA. At present we do not have review group for A class assessment (some projects like WP:WPBIO do). It is done individually. FACs can be assessed for A class.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New articles for assessment

By generating list from category pages, so far I have tagged project template into 2000+ articles . My guess is there are 10000+ medicine related articles in en.wiki. These articles need to be assessed to have a clearer picture of this project and in future might help setting up goals. Outrigg's script might save time. However read instructions carefully before changing anything in your monobook. Change TemplateA to WPMED in the script. Unassessed articles can be found here(quality) and here(priority). There is a delay in updating bot generated assessment logs --Countincr ( t@lk ) 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Installing Outriggr's script

This script was developed by Outriggr and steps shown here are for installing it for wikiproject medicine only and is not recommended for new users as it involves changing your monobook. Any change or edit you make is your own responsibility. please visit the script page to know how it works.

  1. For this script to work your skin preference should be monobook.js (it is the default setting). You can change to monobook by going to preference.
  2. Go to your monobook
  3. Copy and paste the five lines below into monobook.js.
// [[User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js]] <nowiki>
importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); 
assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WPMED|class=|importance=}}", "{{TemplateB|class=|importance=}}", "{{TemplateC|class=|importance=}}"];
assessmentDefaultProject = "WPMED";
// </nowiki>
  1. Save the edit to monobook.js, then refresh your browser as the page directions indicate
  2. If you wish to delete the tool, just remove the pasted script and refresh the browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countincr (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • User options

For all options, spelling and CaSe are important.

You can set the default importance. To set it to "mid" add this to monobook:
assessmentDefaultPriority = "Mid";  //
Assessment will be displayed as "minor" by default. To make them "not minor", add the following to your monobook.js:
assessmentMarkAsMinor = false;
The script will maintain all watchlist settings, and if you have the Wikipedia Preference "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" turned on, by default all assessed articles will be added to your watchlist. To prevent this (i.e. to maintain the watchlist status of only pages you already have watchlisted), add the following to your monobook.js:
assessmentOverrideWatchPref = true;
  • So far it worked fine for me. Please enlist your name at script page and if you discover any bug let Outriggr know.--Countincr ( t@lk ) 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priority

I've drafted a revised importance scale for the WPMED project. Since practically every medical condition and treatment has "international notability," the usual (geography-oriented) rules seem inadequate. Please take a look at this draft and let me know what you think. (Comments here, please, so everyone can easily be involved in the discussion). Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Support. Without a doubt. Much better. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Short article, not stub -- please create a new category

Some articles are voluntarily kept short, because they cover a topic closely related to a much larger article. For example, tumor is kept short to reduce duplication with the huge, encyclopedic cancer article.

Tumor is not a stub, it is (and will remain) a short article. Please create a new category. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem. Tumor has never been classified as a stub by this project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, you are right: Tumor is classified as a "start", which is also wrong. I was thinking of neoplasm, classified a "stub" until I changed it today. I was avoiding the neoplasm article because, as you know well, we disagree on this "voluntarily kept short" business.
I was hoping to find support for my idea. Finding you running the show here too, I guess I'll look elsewhere. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You might consider taking your proposal to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. I think they're the people who own the "quality" scheme. (The only thing WPMED adds is the column of examples on the far right side of the table.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It is theoretically possible for a short article to become B-class, GA or even FA. In practice, short articles have a habit of remaining start class. Anything that is not a stub is not a stub; Wikipedia does not allow for further size distinctions. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)