Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment/Bejinhan

=Bejinhan's PPI Assessment Page= Bejinhan is classified as a Wikipedia expert.

Assessment 1, part 1
The purpose of this evaluation in not to gauge variability in article quality, but to look at the metric itself. How consistent is this assessment tool? and Is there a difference in scores between subject area expert assessment and Wikipedian article assessment?
 * I think that as it is with every other assessment method, it depends on how lenient and generous the person accessing the article is. Also, if it is a Wikipedian accessing the article, he/she would look out for points relating to verifiability, notability, how wikified it is, etc. However, if it is a subject expert accessing it, he/she would look out for the accuracy and whether the article contains adequate info on the subject. This does not mean that accessing accurately is impossible, it just means that there is not perfect method of accessing, whether it's the metric system or not.
 * I agree. I am betting that there is not really a difference between expert and wikipedian assessors, I think the scores will be very dependent on the individual reviewer. Rating article quality is extremely qualitative/subjective, so it is impossible to create a metric that is completely consistent, but if we can have some statistical evidence to show that with this metric scores were fairly consistent and the scores between experts and Wikipedians were similar then that is some pretty interesting and powerful information to share with the academic community. I need a few more assessments and then I can plug the data into a statistical test and we can see what, if anything it means. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 18:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (1 July 2010)

 * Comprehensiveness - 3/10 The sentence about who proposed it and who supported it could be moved down to one of the sub-sections, and the description of it, moved up. The description also lacks clarity and includes info not related to what the Act is all about.
 * Sourcing - 2/6 At least 3 paragraphs, out of a total of 6 paragraphs, are unreferenced. Giving it a 2/6 instead of a 3/6 because fact-claiming statements in the description paragraph is un-soruced.
 * Neutrality - 1/3 Too many POV statements.
 * Readability - 1/3 Grammar errors caused readability to be affected.
 * Illustrations - 1/2 Only pic could be made smaller and a 2nd pic, relating to events that involved the Act, added.
 * Formatting - 1/2 Obvious external link in the intro is an eyesore and totally against wiki-formatting.
 * Total - 9/26

Homeland Security Act (1 July 2010)

 * Comprehensiveness - 2/10 Just a glance at the first 2 sentences revealed what a confusing article it is. Doesn't briefly describe all the Act is about and the positive/negative impact it has.
 * Sourcing - 0/6 No sources for every of the fact-claiming statements.
 * Neutrality - 1/3 Strong POV statements.
 * Readability - 0/3 Sentences are confusingly jumbled together, making no proper grammatical sense.
 * Illustrations - 0/2 No illustrations
 * Formatting - 1/2 Would be better if the sentence about the department is moved down, giving way to description about the Act, since the article is about the Act and not about the department.
 * Total - 4/26

James Q Wilson (1 July 2010)

 * Comprehensiveness - 5/10 Intro is well-written but could use further expansion.
 * Sourcing - 2/6 Poorly sourced and one of the three refs is not even in a cite web template.
 * Neutrality - 2/3 A couple of POV statements exist but I compared it to the article length when deciding on score.
 * Readability - 3/3 Pretty easy to understand.
 * Illustrations - 0/2 No illustrations.
 * Formatting - 2/2 Sections are where they should be.
 * Total - 14/26

Drug policy of the United States (1 July 2010)

 * Comprehensiveness - 1/10 Intro is fail and article should be about the policy and not about drug usage and history in the US.
 * Sourcing - 3/6 Article contains one un-sourced section only and has eight refs that could be formatted in the cite web template format.
 * Neutrality - 3/3
 * Readability - 3/3
 * Illustrations - 0/3 Article could use more pictures. Only pic is too large, is non-free, and does not directly relate to subject.
 * Formatting - 1/2 External link in image caption.
 * Total - 11/26

Medicare (United States) (1 July 2010)

 * Comprehensiveness - 8/10 In the intro, it could help if an explanation is given on how the Social Security Act of 1965 and Medicare is related. Also, trivia about President Truman being given a Medicare card is not needed in the intro section and section could be used to further explain about Medicare.
 * Sourcing - 3/6 Most of the article is sourced, but there are un-sourced sections with fact-claiming statements.
 * Neutrality - 3/3 Article is generally neutral and presents both the negative and positive result/reaction.
 * Readability - 2/3 Generally readable, except for the too in-depth parts.
 * Illustrations - 0/2 For an article that length, one would expect more illustrations relating to subject, for ex. graphs.
 * Formatting - 2/2
 * Total - 18/26

Operation Green Sweep (1 July 2010)

 * Comprehensiveness - 4/10 Article describes the events of the operation without telling why it was conducted and what led to it.
 * Sourcing - 3/6 Un-sourced sections although many of the links in the External links section could be used as refs.
 * Neutrality - 2/3 Tone was pretty matter-of-fact except for a few POV words.
 * Readability - 3/3
 * Illustrations - 0/2 No illustrations
 * Formatting - 1/2 Formatting could be better. A suggestion would be break up the operation events on a day-by-day basis.
 * Total - 13/26

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (1 July 2010)

 * Comprehensiveness - 10/10
 * Sourcing - 3/6 A blog was used as a source and I think there should be a link to section 601 of the Social Security Act to as a reference to the list of purposes and work requirements.
 * Neutrality - 3/3
 * Readability - 1/3 Lumped up paragraphs make reading a bit "tight". Different topics should be put into different paragraphs and sub-sections.
 * Illustrations - 0/2 Illustration given does not directly relate to subject.
 * Formatting - 0/2 As per above, it would be better for the various topics to be divided into sub-sections and paragraphs.
 * Total - 17/26

Universal health care (1 July 2010)

 * Comprehensiveness - 6/10 Well-written intro that could use further expansion. There is a mention of the various countries in different continents that have this system, but no mention of African countries except a list of these countries.
 * Sourcing - 2/6 A rough scan reveals many citation needed tags and some of the description of the different systems in various countries that have either insufficient sources or completely no sources at all.
 * Neutrality - 3/3
 * Readability - 1/3 Some of the descriptions are rather complicated and difficult to understand.
 * Illustrations - 0/2 For an article of that length, 3 illustrations is way below the sufficient par.
 * Formatting - 2/2
 * Total - 14/26

Assessment request 1, part 2
All from 1 October 2010 or there about. There are a couple of rereviews, hopefully those will be fast.

Equal Access to COBRA Act

 * Comprehensiveness - 1/10 Article only contains one sentence summarizing what the act is all about. More explanation and details should be given.
 * Sourcing - 3/6 The one sentence was sourced. Giving it a three because I felt that more info could be taken out from article reffed.
 * Neutrality - 3/3
 * Readability - 1/3 Not very understandable, especially to those who doesn't understand or know what COBRA is.
 * Illustrations - 0/2 No illustrations
 * Formatting - 1/2 External link found in sentence itself.
 * Total - 9/26

Reorganization Plan No. 3

 * Comprehensiveness - 3/10 First sentence should be a summary of what the order is about and not include in who submitted it or when. Adding those additional info makes understanding the sentence difficult as it messes it up.
 * Sourcing - 1/6 Article contains only one source and it is a primary source. Could use more third-party sources.
 * Neutrality - 3/3
 * Readability - 1/3 At some parts, language was not easy to understand.
 * Illustrations - 0/2 No illustrations.
 * Formatting - 1/2 Per comprehensiveness explanation above, first sentence could use some re-ordering.
 * Total - 9/26

Brown v. Board of Education

 * Comprehensiveness - 10/10 Well-written, well-explained
 * Sourcing - 4/6 All fact-claiming statements are sourced with many of them taken from third-party sources. However, there was a section where a huge portion did not have inline citations.
 * Neutrality - 2/3 Minor POV statements.
 * Readability - 2/3 Some sentences could use re-wording and long paragraphs broken up.
 * Illustrations - 1/2 More illustrations could be useful.
 * Formatting - 2/2
 * Total - 21/26

Government Accountability Office

 * Comprehensiveness - 7/10
 * Sourcing - 2/6
 * Neutrality - 2/3
 * Readability - 1/3
 * Illustrations - 2/2
 * Formatting - 0/2
 * Total - 14/26

Illegal immigrant population of the United States

 * Comprehensiveness - 3/10
 * Sourcing - 3/6
 * Neutrality - 2/3
 * Readability - 1/3
 * Illustrations - 0/2
 * Formatting - 0/2
 * Total - 9/26

State school

 * Comprehensiveness - 5/10
 * Sourcing - 1/6
 * Neutrality - 3/3
 * Readability - 2/3
 * Illustrations - 2/2
 * Formatting - 1/2
 * Total - 14/26

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

 * Comprehensiveness - 3/10 Lead paragraph should be about what the act is about and not about who sponsored or supported it.
 * Sourcing - 2/6 Parts of article is lacking sources. Links in external link section could be used as references.
 * Neutrality - 2/3 POV statements
 * Readability - 1/3 I found some parts confusing and difficult to understand.
 * Illustrations - 1/2 More illustrations could be used.
 * Formatting - 1/2 I'd like to see more pictures related to the act.
 * Total - 10/26

Homeland Security Act

 * Comprehensiveness - 3/10
 * Sourcing - 0/6
 * Neutrality - 0/3
 * Readability - 1/3
 * Illustrations - 0/2
 * Formatting - 1/2
 * Total - 5/26

Medicare (United States)

 * Comprehensiveness - 10/10
 * Sourcing - 2/6
 * Neutrality - 3/3
 * Readability - 3/3
 * Illustrations - 0/2
 * Formatting - 2/2
 * Total - 20/26