Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Assessment

Pharmacology articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	4	3				8
GA	1	12	9				22
B	35	197	135	17		16	400
C	14	52	49	17		21	153
Start	52	194	497	238		252	1,233
Stub	21	58	685	1,282		3,132	5,178
List		10	110	25		129	274
NA				2	350		352
Assessed	124	527	1,488	1,581	350	3,550	7,620
Unassessed						220	220
Total	124	527	1,488	1,581	350	3,770	7,840

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Pharmacology! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to pharmacology and drug-related 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 Pharmacology}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories class and importance.

Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles? 

Any member of WikiProject Pharmacology is free to add or change the rating of an article.

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. If you're looking for more specific and detailed help in improving an article, you might try peer review, Good Article candidate review, or Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week.

What if I don't agree with a rating? 

You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.

Aren't the ratings subjective? 

Yes, they are, 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 them on the discussion page for this department.

Article quality

Quality assessment

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

{{WikiProject Pharmacology|class=???}}

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

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class pharmacology articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class pharmacology articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class pharmacology articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class pharmacology articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class pharmacology articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class pharmacology articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class pharmacology articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class pharmacology articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class pharmacology articles)		List

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class pharmacology articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed pharmacology articles)		???

The class parameter should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Please note that FA-Class and GA-Class article assessments are not assigned automatically through this system. Instead, an article must be reviewed first at WP:FAC or WP:GAC. A-Class assessments are not currently used by WikiProject Pharmacology.

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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.	Linezolid (as of September 2009)
A	The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help.	(not used by this WikiProject)
GA	The article has attained good article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	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.	Alprazolam (as of March 2009)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	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 also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Chloramphenicol (as of July 2010)
C	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	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 address cleanup issues.	Clorazepate (as of July 2010)
Start	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Semagacestat (as of April 2010)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Denaverine (as of July 2010)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	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.	List of cutaneous conditions (as of June 2010)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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.	ATC code L04 (as of July 2010)

Topic importance

Importance assessment

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

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

Top

High

Mid

Low

???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - adds articles to Category:Top-importance pharmacology articles
• High - adds articles to Category:High-importance pharmacology articles
• Mid - adds articles to Category:Mid-importance pharmacology articles
• Low - adds articles to Category:Low-importance pharmacology articles
• Unknown/Unassessed - Any article not rated for importance is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance pharmacology articles.

Importance scale

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	This is the highest importance. Articles rated as top-importance are generally major classes of drugs, or a major concept of pharmacology. Interestingly enough, there are no actual individual drug articles assessed at this level.	Anti-inflammatory, Beta blocker, Clinical trial, Pharmacogenomics
High	Articles assessed as high-importance generally include major drugs, like a prototype drug for a class, the first drug discovered in a class, or a drug that has received major media coverage.	Penicillin, Caffeine, LSD, Viagra
Mid	Drugs which are commonly prescribed and/or used but not the major drug in its class, are assessed at mid-importance. Examples include Daunorubicin (similar to Doxorubicin, which is assessed high, but with over 2,000 known DOX analogs, we're not putting all of them at high-importance ;-).	Kanamycin, Tetracaine
Low	Drugs assessed at low-importance is pretty much everything else. Not very well known, primarily research compounds that are not on the market but might be used in the laboratory for studies, etc,...	PA 824, 5-Methoxytryptamine

Requesting an assessment

See also: Archive

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. Please note that, if you would like an article assessed for FA or GA status, that is must be nominated at WP:FAC or WP:GAC, respectively.

Requested assessments

• fen-phen. Please note that I have COI issues which have been posted on the fenphen discussion page. I have included a government document that is to be found only on my site. It is a 20 year old intramural NIDA protocol. Although my name is on the protocol, that was a courtesy by the authors. Another citation which is cited on pubmed has the full text linked also to my google site. Are these citations Wiki appropriate?

I have passed this article by an academic friend who states that from his expert knowledge I have been factual and unbiased. Do tell me otherwise. User:Scientizzle has been helpful. PietrH (talk) 22:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Rated Start. See Talk:Fenfluramine/phentermine#Rating for more information. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:41, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• A.C.E. mixture, I rated this as a C class article with importance Low (Rational: referenced quite well, but the article is not very thorough and the subject of the article is quite old). I am just posting here to make sure that this is okay? Best regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 12:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have made further improvements since placing this request, although I am not sure if it qualifies as a 'B' class article. Best regards, Captain n00dle\^Talk 18:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)