Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Science articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
Featured article FA 2 2 1 5
Featured list FL 1 1
GA 2 1 7 2 12
B 7 11 11 10 9 48
C 9 33 34 64 51 191
Start 2 48 76 325 299 750
Stub 2 22 30 412 89 555
List 5 11 13 40 26 95
Book 7 7
Category 1,988 1,988
Disambig 14 14
File 7 7
Portal 14 14
Project 11 11
Redirect 1 59 60
Template 57 57
Other 4 4
Assessed 29 128 164 861 2,161 476 3,819
Unassessed 2 179 181
Total 29 128 164 863 2,161 655 4,000
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 8,062 Ω = 5.13
Index · Statistics · Log

Welcome to the assessment page for WikiProject Science.

Contents

FAQs[edit]

What is the purpose of article assessments? 
The assessment system allows a WikiProject to monitor the quality of articles in its subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. The ratings are also used by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content.
Are these ratings official? 
Not really; these ratings are meant primarily for the internal use of the project, and usually do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
Who can assess articles? 
In general, anyone can add or change an article's rating. However, the "GA" and "FA" labels should only be used on articles that have been reviewed and are currently designated as good articles or featured articles, respectively. Individual WikiProjects may also have more formal procedures for rating an article, and please note that the WikiProject bears ultimate responsibility for resolving disputes.
How do I assess an article? 
Consult the quality scale below; once you have chosen the level that seems to be closest to the article, set the class parameter in the WikiProject banner template to the level's name (omitting "Class" from the end). For example, to rate an article as "B-Class", use |class=B in the banner. Again, the "FA" and "GA" labels should not be added to articles unless are currently designated as such.
Someone put a project banner template on an article, but it's not really within the WikiProject's scope. What should I do? 
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the article's talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
What if I don't agree with a rating? 
Feel free to change it—within reason—if you think a different rating is justified; in the case of major disputes, the WikiProject as a whole can discuss the issue and come to a consensus as to the best rating.
Aren't the ratings subjective? 
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
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 the article is within this project's scope but doesn't have a project banner on its talk page? 
Due to the large number of articles we cover, not all articles within our scope can be tagged. However you can help increase the number of tagged articles by tagging the talk page of any untagged articles within our scope you come across with {{WikiProject Science}}.

How to rate articles[edit]

Any member of Wikiproject Science are invited to rate articles for the project. Articles with unassessed quality can be found at Category:Unassessed science articles and articles with unassessed importance ratings can be found at Category:Unknown-importance science articles

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in any of the project banners found on article's talk page:

For example adding {{WikiProject Science|class=B|importance=mid}} produces:

WikiProject Science (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This page has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

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

{{WikiProject Science|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 science articles) Featured article FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class science articles) A-Class article A 
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class science articles)  GA 
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class science articles) B-Class article B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class science articles) C-Class article C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class science articles) Start-Class article Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class science articles) Stub-Class article Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class science articles) Featured list FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class science 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 science articles) Wikipedia Book Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class science articles) Category page Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class science articles) Disambiguation page Disambig 
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class science articles)  Draft 
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class science articles)  File 
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class science articles) Redirect page Redirect 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class science articles)  Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class science articles)  Project 
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class science articles)  Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class science articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed science articles)  ??? 


Top
High
Mid
Low

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Quality scale[edit]

This table is transcluded here, and is identical to the one at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment.

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
Featured article FA  The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
    5. 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.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses 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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
A-Class article A  The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject 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:Article development. 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 would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA  The article has attained good article status having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article criteria:

A good article is—

  1. Well written:
    1. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those 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;
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (but 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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of December 2017)
B-Class article B  The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. 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.
  6. 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 be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. The Hague
(as of June 2018)
C-Class article C  The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains much irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it 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. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.
 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 solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start-Class article Start  An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete. It might or might not cite adequate 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. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as BLP. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ring-tailed cardinalfish
(as of June 2018)
Stub-Class article Stub  A very basic description of the topic. However, all very-bad-quality articles will fall into this category.
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. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.
 Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Crescent Falls
(as of June 2018)
Featured list FL  The article has attained featured list status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. 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.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 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. List of Guggenheim Fellowships awarded in 1947
(as of June 2018)

Importance scale[edit]

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. Atom
 High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Large Hadron Collider
 Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. 0.999...
 Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. G cell

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.

Assessments[edit]

Use this section for assessment discussions and comments:

Log[edit]

October 8, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 7, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 4, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

October 3, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 2, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • DIUx (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Stephanie Snedden (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

October 1, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 30, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 29, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 28, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 21, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Nanotube (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Redirect-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).

September 19, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

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

September 18, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 16, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 15, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 14, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 13, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 12, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 10, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 9, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 8, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 7, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 5, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 4, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • 2020 in science (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to List-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to High-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

September 1, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

August 31, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 30, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 29, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 26, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 25, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

August 22, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 21, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Ulrike Felt (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

August 19, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

August 18, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 17, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

August 16, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

August 14, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 13, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Lou Zhicen (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t).

August 12, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 11, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 10, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 9, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 8, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 7, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

August 6, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 3, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

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

August 2, 2018[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 1, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

July 31, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Aerosol bomb (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

July 28, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

July 26, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 25, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 24, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 23, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 22, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

July 21, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

July 20, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 19, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

July 18, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

July 15, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 14, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

July 9, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • DLight1 (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • DotLab (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Low-Class (rev · t).

July 8, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

July 1, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Earth Science Week (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]

  • DLight1 (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

June 28, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 27, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 26, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 23, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 22, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 19, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 17, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • Yomi (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science/Assessment&oldid=810172803"