English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:WikiProject Science/Assessment
{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Science articles by quality statistics}}Index · Statistics · Log
Welcome to the assessment page for WikiProject Science.
FAQs
- What is the purpose of article assessments?
- The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
- Are these ratings official?
- Not really; these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
- Who can assess articles?
- In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes.
- How do I assess an article?
- Consult the quality scale below; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use
|class=Bin the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless are currently designated as such.
- Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject's scope. What should I do?
- Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the article's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
- Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
- 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 the article is within this project's scope but doesn't have a project banner on its talk page?
- Due to the large number of articles we cover, not all articles within our scope can be tagged. However you can help increase the number of tagged articles by tagging the talk page of any untagged articles within our scope you come across with {{WikiProject Science}}.
How to rate articles
Any member of Wikiproject Science are invited to rate articles for the project. Articles with unassessed quality can be found at Category:Unassessed science articles and articles with unassessed importance ratings can be found at Category:Unknown-importance science articles
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in any of the project banners found on article's talk page:
For example adding {{WikiProject Science|class=B|importance=mid}} produces:
 | Science B‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Science}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject Science|class=???}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
| FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class science articles) |  FA |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class science articles) |  GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class science articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class science articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class science articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class science articles) | Stub |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
| Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class science articles) | Category | |
| Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class science articles) | Disambig | |
| Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class science articles) | Project | |
| Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class science articles) | Template | |
| ??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed science articles) | ??? |
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - The article is about one of the core topics of Science as listed in Core topics - Technology. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance science articles
- High - The article is about the basic technologies and infrastructures or the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Science. Adds articles to Category:High-importance science articles
- Mid - The article is about a topic within Science that may or may not be commonly known outside the Science industry. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance science articles
- Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within Science and is not generally common knowledge outside the Science industry. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance science articles
Quality scale
This table is transcluded here, and is identical to the one at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA |
The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:{{Wikipedia:Featured article criteria}}
|
Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:{{Wikipedia:Featured list criteria}}
|
Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
 A |
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
{{Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria|raw=yes}} |
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) |
| GA |
The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria}}
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019) |
| B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
{{Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria|raw=yes}}
|
Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. | A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
| C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
|
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
| Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
|
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. | Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
| List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. | Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | List of literary movements |
Importance scale
| Importance | Criteria | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Atom |
| High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Large Hadron Collider |
| Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | 0.999... |
| Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. | G cell |
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.
- Ethnomethodology, but it seems that this article has been assessed by proxy already? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthnomethodology&diff=286049067&oldid=286027889 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEthnomethodology&diff=466860886&oldid=448626737
- Science and technology in the Philippines
- Self-assembling peptide
- Draft:THEaiTRE
- Immunologic Constant of Rejection
- Aminopeptidase - I didn't add the content, but would like an assessment; also, there was a plagiarism issue noted in 2020 on the talk page that was never addressed in article. I've added quotation marks around the exact text lifted from the linked abstract of the article (the whole article is linked, but the abstract is what was lifted).OIM20 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- Xylanase - this one was also greatly expanded by a new editor. No issues on the talk page this time, though. OIM20 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
- (Your entry here)
Assessments
Use this section for assessment discussions and comments:
Log
{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Science articles by quality log}}