Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low

Welcome to the assessment department of the Neuroscience WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's neuroscience 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 {{WikiProject Neuroscience}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Neuroscience articles by quality and Category:Neuroscience articles by importance.

A Featured Article is the highest possible assessment, and requires a community consensus demonstrated at Featured Article Candidates per the guidelines of What Is a Featured Article? An A-Class Article is very well-written, nearly comprehensive and approaching excellence, but may still need minor edits and adjustments.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How can I get my article rated? 
List it in the requesting an assessment section below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of WikiProject Neuroscience is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article? 
Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
Relist it as a request or contact the project.
Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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 on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience directly.


Index · Statistics · Log

An article's assessment is generated from the parameters in the {{WikiProject Neuroscience}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed neuroscience articles.


You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below. This is the rating syntax (ratings are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{WikiProject Neuroscience}} or {{WikiProject Neuroscience|class=|importance=}}
  • Displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|class=A|importance=Top}}
  • Classed A with Top priority. All assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in.

Quality assessment[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Neuroscience| ... | class=??? | ...}}

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

Priority assessment[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Neuroscience| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance scale[edit]

WikiProject article importance scheme

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to a student or an expert.

Requesting an assessment or re-assessment[edit]

If you have made significant changes to an article please feel free to list it below. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, contact Project members or enlist it to Peer review instead.

Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM

Still Start class. Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
List articles don't get a quality rating. Do you think the importance rating should be higher? Looie496 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I, for one, don't think we should raise the importance rating. Something that I would speculate might be on 71's mind might be that the page is kind of a mess, and needs some serious attention. Partly out of consideration for the editor who has been devoted to working on it, and partly out of my just not having enough motivation to want to work on it, I've been leaving it alone, but every time I think about it I wince. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Brain Mapping Foundation: Pursuant to the Notability tag that was added to the article, I have made some edits and included secondary sources. I would like to take this opportunity to request a reassessment, in an effort to track our progress on Wikipedia's quality/importance scale. Thank you. Choupz (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
As for notability, I'm the one who tagged it, and I've now un-tagged it. There's more discussion at my user talk. As for the project assessment, I don't see changing the importance level (it's in terms of editing priority, not a comment about how worthwhile the subject is). I think that for it to move up from "start" class, it would be helpful to really make sure it conforms with WP:MOS, and to get the external links out of the main text. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Understood Tryptofish, I will look into the Styling Guidelines and circle back to you. Once again, thank you for all the valuable advice you've given us so far! Choupz (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome! I've made the assessment for the WikiProject. I'm going to comment on the article talk page about merging the page into the parent article. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Edward Perl: New to Wikipedia, but I started an article on neuroscientist Edward Perl, which was published about a month ago and which has since been improved by other Wikipedia readers/users. I see that this page has been categorized as part of WikiProject Neuroscience; further, there's a note on the Talk page that this article hasn't yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Don't know if I need to request this (or if it's necessary), but I was a little curious how this worked. Thanks! B Taylor-Blake (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, and thanks for asking! Seeing the improvements to the page, I just raised the assessment from start class to C class. I've looked at importance ratings for biography pages in our project, and they are all over the place, so I rated it Mid. The whole business of rating isn't really that important, and it's purely "inside baseball", in that it only refers to the inside process of Wikipedia editing. Importance is not a value judgment about the subject, but merely an indication of how high priority it is for editors in this project to work on it; a lot of biographies are not even listed in this WikiProject. The quality ratings indicate how much more editing is needed before the page is considered to be of the highest quality. The way it works is that someone makes the assessments when they notice it and decide to do it, and your note here made me notice it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Tryptofish, for the explanation and for the additional work, which I wasn't expecting. I look forward to others' helping to improve the page. B Taylor-Blake (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


The logs in this section are generated automatically ; please don't add entries to them by hand.

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.