Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals
WikiProject Academic Journals
Main / Talk
Resources
Main / talk
Writing guide
Main / talk
Assessment
Main / talk
Notability guidelines
Main / talk
Journals cited by Wikipedia
Main / talk / Exclusions

For a more general overview of assessment at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Assessment.

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Academic Journals. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Academic Journals 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.

Category:Academic Journal articles by quality serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPJournals}} project banner. Filling in a rating in the class parameter of the {{WPJournals}} template on the talk page of an article causes the name of that article to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Academic Journal articles by quality.

The following system is based on the general criteria for assessing how close we are to a distribution-quality article on a particular topic. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects principally how complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors. Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered "complete", although edits will continue to be made.

Contents

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How can I get an article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the Academic Journals WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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 on how to assess an Academic Journal article[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPJournals}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Academic Journal articles. At present, there are almost 800 Academic Journal articles that need assessment (e.g., that need to have a class inserted in the class parameter of the {{WPJournals}} template).

Academic Journal articles to be assessed have some aspects of the {{WPJournals}} template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. Select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed Academic Journal articles. Then, look over the article in anticipation of filling out the parameters of the {{WPJournals}} template. Finally, add in the proper parameters to the talk page template, as outlined below.

Class parameter[edit]

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Academic Journal articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Two levels, GA and FA, are not assessments that can be assigned simply by a project member. These refer to external judgments of article quality made at WP:GA and WP:FA. If these tags are desired, and the article meets the criteria (for GA or FA), it must be nominated (for GA or FA) and await comments.

It is vital that people do not take these assessments personally. It is understood that we all have different priorities and different opinions about what makes a perfect article. Generally an active project will develop a consensus, though be aware that different projects may use their own variation of the criteria more tuned for the subject area, such as this. Many projects have an assessment team. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment.

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Requesting an assessment[edit]

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Note: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you assess an article, please remove it so that other editors will not waste time reviewing the same articles. Thanks!

Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B'; see Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles for higher assessments.

Edit this section and place request here:

  1. Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology
  2. The Burlington Magazine
  3. FEBS Letters
  4. International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management
  5. Hastings West-Northwest Journal of Environmental Law and Policy
  6. The Urban Lawyer

Current status[edit]

Featured article FA  A-Class article A   GA  B-Class article B  C-Class article C  Start-Class article Start  Stub-Class article Stub  Featured list FL   List  Category page Category  Disambiguation page Disambig   Draft   File   Project  Redirect page Redirect   Template   NA   ???  Total
1 0 3 23 134 2,571 4,753 0 90 689 94 0 2,512 47 3,349 81 36 14 14,397
WikiProject Academic Journals  articles by quality     Refresh

Assessment log[edit]

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

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading or raising an article more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

July 3, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 2, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 17, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 16, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 15, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 14, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 13, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 12, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 10, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 9, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 8, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 7, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 6, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 5, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 3, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 1, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 30, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 29, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

May 27, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Biology Open (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

May 26, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 25, 2015[edit]

Removed[edit]

May 24, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

May 23, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 22, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 21, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 20, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 18, 2015[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

May 17, 2015[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]