Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Assessment

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

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

Contents

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 Skepticism 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 {{WikiProject Skepticism}} project banner on its talk page:

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

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

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Skepticism articles) Category page Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Skepticism articles) Disambiguation page Disambig 
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Skepticism articles)  Draft 
File (for files; adds pages to Category:File-Class Skepticism articles)  File 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Skepticism articles)  Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Skepticism articles)  Project 
Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Skepticism articles)  Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Skepticism articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Skepticism 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:Skepticism 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 {{WikiProject Skepticism}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Skepticism| ... | 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 Skepticism. A reader who is not involved in the field of Skepticism 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. Scientific skepticism
High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding Skepticism. A reader who is not involved in the field of Skepticism will have a reasonable level of familiarity with the subject matter, but may need clarifications for some of the more technical terminology. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, however with more specificity and technical terms than the Top-importance articles. Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science
Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of Skepticism. 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 Skepticism, such as specific aspects of Skepticism. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in Skepticism will be rated in this level. Steven Novella
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Skepticism. Few readers outside the Skepticism field or that are not adherents to it 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 Skepticism, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of Skepticism. Bates method

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 below.

Assessment log[edit]

Skepticism articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

May 5, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Atlantis (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t).
  • Charles Fort (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).
  • Faith healing (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Herbalism (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

  • Conservapedia (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

May 4, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 3, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 2, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

May 1, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Exorcism (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Lee Carroll (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

  • Massage (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Category:Massage (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as NA-Class (rev · t).

April 29, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Good Thinking Society (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

April 28, 2015[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 27, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 25, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

April 24, 2015[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 23, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 21, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Theophany (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

Removed[edit]

April 20, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 19, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Pigasus Award (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Sokal affair (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • The Truth About Uri Geller (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

April 18, 2015[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 17, 2015[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 15, 2015[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Derogatory (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

April 12, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 11, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 9, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 8, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 7, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 5, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 4, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 3, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 2, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Reiki (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from GA-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

April 1, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

March 30, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • Unicorn horn (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

March 29, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 28, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

March 27, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 26, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 25, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 23, 2015[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]