Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Assessment

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.

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 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.

Quality assessments
After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.

Requesting an assessment
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.


 * Conspiracy Theory Still C class. There's a quote repeated a few times, and the Examples section should have at least some of the more famous. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rod (cryptozoology) It's a B class. Not sure it's any higher, but still, nice article. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Gerovital (possibly also categorizable under alternative medicine?) It's written well enough, but needs too many citations, C class. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science - still under development and discussion, but an assessment would be helpful That was a read, but B class it is. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Creation and evolution in public education Unrated It's been rated a B since. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Amazing Meeting has recently been significantly rewritten It's at a B level now, and I'd say even higher. you may wish to use peer-review to ask for a higher level. Jerod Lycett (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Narconon Assessed for us. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Diploma mill It's assessed correctly as B class. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Anneliese Michel - recently brought within this projects fold, has some improvement but not assessed so far. Assessed it as B, not sure it's higher though. Jerod Lycett (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Jere H. Lipps ✅: After the update I have assessed as B. The article suffers from a lack of photos. Lipps has some important research that could be expanded in a future update. Kyle(talk) 02:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC) 02:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Tyler Henry reality show "medium" in USA Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 08:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Rommel myth -- new article. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * James Oberg -- expanded, please assess. Akumiszcza (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * List of superstitions - Converted from redirect to stub, assessed as Mid importance taking a clue from Superstition, which has a Top rating. Paradoctor (talk) 14:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Fad diet - entire revision using WP:MEDRS sources for health claims (guidelines, reviews), and reviews and encyclopedias for the history section + cleaning/deleting primary sources + illustrations. Was rated a start class a long time ago, should be reassessed. --Signimu (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Roberto Burioni Expanded from a stub. Please assess. JohnnyBflat (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Assessment log

 * The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.