Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Philosophy
Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Philosophy WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Philosophy 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 {{Philosophy}}
project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Philosophy articles by quality and Category:Philosophy articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Current status[edit]

Philosophy task force assessment statistics worklistlogcategory

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Philosophy WikiProject 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.
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.

Instructions[edit]

Quality assessments[edit]

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

{{Philosophy|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Quality scale for assessment criteria):

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

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

Book (for Wikipedia books; adds pages to Category:Book-Class Philosophy articles) Wikipedia Book Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Philosophy articles) Category page Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Philosophy articles) Disambiguation page Disambig 
File (for files; adds pages to Category:File-Class Philosophy articles)  File 
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles) Redirect page Redirect 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Philosophy articles)  Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Philosophy articles)  Project 
Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Philosophy articles)  Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Philosophy articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Philosophy articles)  ??? 

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Philosophy articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance assessment[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Philosophy| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Importance scale[edit]

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about philosophy. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Philosophy article. A reader who is not in /Cved in the philosophy field will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. Philosophy
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding philosophy. Epistemology
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of philosophy. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand philosophy. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Articles about most significant individuals in the history of philosophy will be rated in this level. Absurdism
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of philosophy. Few readers outside the philosophy field or that are not philosophy students may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of philosophy, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of philosophy. Ogyū Sorai

Requesting an assessment[edit]

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 at the bottom below.

  • Can I suggest someone look at the Francis Bacon article. It's currently rated as "C" for this group, but I'm of the view that it deserves a higher rating as significant improvements have been made. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree that the article on Paolo Virno is start class but do not agree with its assessment as of low IMPORTANCE. Virno is an important figure in the philosophy of political action and communication, as well as of the positioning of types of labor and collectivity in the present world, and deserves better. The article has some strange wording and is inadequately sourced, but the 'low importance' assessment seems to be independent of that. ( Also, what's there needs some copy editing.) Actio (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Might someone please look at the Arius article again? It was rather poorly written before, and had a "rewrite" tag on it when I found it and set about rewriting and reworking it from top to bottom. I'd be interested in seeing where it is now, compared to where it was before, together with any suggestions for improvement. I definitely think it's better than "Start" class, now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The Bad faith article needs help. All RS content in the philosophy section of that article was reverted out twice. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The Justice as Fairness article has been substantially reworked and renovated, improving the content and referencing the majority of claims with a mixture of primary and secondary sources. Thedaggerz (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have been in /Cved in work that I think might bring both reason and nous to a new assessment level. Can someone have a look?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Several leading experts in the field rewrote the article Multi-criteria decision analysis. The article covers the main aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis with care and includes important references for further information. The article has been structured to allow linking subfields naturally. The structure has been developed through discussions in the two main lists in the area and other leading experts in the field have committed to write articles in the subfields to complement this article. This article deserves a new rating. Koksalan (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Negative capability. I just overhauled this article, which should make it eligible for an upgrade out of "start class" and an importance rating. I would also appreciate any general feedback. Archivingcontext (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I've rated this C class and low importance. My main problem with the article is that it is not as clear as it could be. The lead is worded in quite a confusing way and could be simplified (if you then want to go into detail, do that in the main body of the article). The article also needs background information - what you've got on its development is good, but a reader thrown straight into that may have no idea what the idea is about or responding to. You have some good sources, but heavily rely on a few - it wouldn't hurt to find more.
Therefore, I suggest:
  • A section on the background is written to make the context of the article clearer to someone approaching the idea for the first time.
  • Improve the lead. I would suggest that you have one paragraph in the lead per section of the article (though no more than 4 paragraphs). Cover each important area in a much more simple way that you will in the rest of the article. I suggest you fix the lead once everything else is sorted.
  • See if you can find a few more references.
I hope that helps. Leave a message on my talk page if you have nay further questions or anything. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Can someone take look at the Tetrabiblos article. It currently has no rating. -- Zac Δ talk! 13:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The Reflectivism article has been very substantially rewritten. A large number of references has also been added. Would it be possible to re-assess?--Ksamjg (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Mirror test has changed significantly since it was last assessed (either up or down). I merged the Rouge test article in with it and did some significant rewriting. I fixed some issues but may have introduced others with the merger.Manicjedi (talk) (contribs) (templates) 20:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I have overhauled Philosophy Documentation Center and re-assessed it from "Stub" to "C". I'm not too familiar with this project, but from the above scale it seems that it's importance rating should be "Low", instead of the current "High". Perhaps someone from this project can have a look. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
  • The importance of the article Normative OUGHT TO be assessed as High, or Top (I have just made a normative claim). The concept is fundamental to Ethics, Aesthetics (and other Values), also Social and Political philosophy and indeed arguably fundamental to understanding Wikipedia's "Neutral Point-of-view" policy and even more IMPORTANTLY its "notability" requirements. It is the normative character of the field of ethics and aesthetics that strongly distinguishes their content from that of "science" (aside - in my opinion, aesthetics ought to be classified as a sub-class of ethics). Indeed, it is a commonly held belief, particularly amongst scientists, that all normative claims are unscientific. Arguably, a writing from a "Neutral Point-of-View" is highly correlated with writing that is non-normative. "Notability", in fact, is an intrinsically normative concept. It is almost impossible to have a sensible discussion about cultural relativism without an understanding of normativity, whether or not that understanding is explicitly connected to that term. With only slight exaggeration, "normativity" is a concept as fundamental to philosophy as that of "unknown quantity" is to algebra.Thomasee73 (talk) 14:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please may I request that the article Edward Bullough is reassessed, as to quality only? It was expanded from a stub this week. Many thanks. Mouse ABC (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Kim Il-yeop This article has been given an importance rating of "Top". I do not think this is justified - such a rating has been reserved for topics such as logic and Aristotle. Please review the importance rating for this article.
  • I have posted on the Talk page the next statement:
If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause, and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum or it ends at some primordial cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition, so causality ultimately cannot explain anything. Discussion, please (on the Talk pag)e about whether to put it in the causality article. Antonquery (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Greg Bard (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Twenty one philosophy journals are ranked top in importance, which seems crazy to me. Few people outside of philosophy will be familiar with them, so they should be ranked low. Beamish Son (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Beamish Son
  • I have rewritten liberal paradox. I would greatly appreciate some other set of eyes. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Rationalism has been improved by Joshuafilmer. I think it qualifies for an assessment upgrade. Could someone from this project please take a look. MrBill3 (talk) 02:41, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Sentences of Sextus - Unassessed article on a text that mixes Christian and Pythagorean material (Or simply gives Pythagorean material a Christian 'spin'. Needs assessing. Also if anyone is interested I managed to find some more sources.Graham1973 (talk) 03:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)