Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment/Experts

Welcome to Wikipedia, and to the Wikimedia Foundation's Public Policy Initiative assessment project! This page explains the assessment system we'll be testing to measure the quality&mdash;and improvements&mdash;in public policy articles during the 2010-2011 academic year. For more context on these experiments, see "Experiments with article assessment" from The Signpost, 2010-09-13. For an overview of the Public Policy Initiative in general, see "Introducing the Public Policy Initiative" from the 2010-06-28 issue.

Thanks for joining the PPI Assessment Team, this team is going to provide the backbone of the evaluation for this project, so the quality of your work is important. I am looking forward to working with you, and you will be acknowledged in any publications that relied on your work. Your contributions are important, so I want to make sure that the assessment team members feel good about their work on this project. I will keep you updated about the analysis and I will try to be clear in communications. I will be out of commission for a few weeks sometime in October and November, but hopefully I will have things organized ahead of time so that interest in project assessment doesn't wane. ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The basics of Article Assessment for the Public Policy Initiative:
 * Below you'll find the rubric for assessing articles as part of Amy Roth's article quality assessment experiments, as well as a tutorial video that walks through an example assessment.
 * Make sure to double check article date, it is preferable to use that date which may be a historical version, use the last version on that date. But it's ok if you assess the article on a different date. If it is too complicated to get the old version just assess the article from the date you view it. Make sure to post the date of the article version you assessed in your results. Occasionally, you will be asked to re-review the same article, but from a later date, please look at it with fresh eyes and then see how close your two assessments are.
 * Most articles will have multiple reviewers, especially this first experiment, but please don't look at another reviewer's scores until you have posted your own.
 * If possible, please assess the requested articles within 2 weeks.

If you'd like to discuss this assessment system with Wikipedians and other public policy experts, you can do so on the general assessment discussion page. If you'd like to add your ratings to Wikipedia, tag articles to be included in the project, or otherwise get involved with the Public Policy Initiative, the general assessment page for WikiProject United States Public Policy is a good place to start. If you'd like an experienced Wikipedian to serve as your mentor while you learn the ropes of Wikipedia, you can request one here. And feel free to email Sage Ross or Amy Roth with any questions.

Rubric
This rubric is based Wikipedia's policies and expectations for high-quality articles. It has detailed breakdowns of scores for different aspects of article quality, but it also can translate into the standard Stub/Start/C/B scale and thus feed into the 1.0 assessment system without too much duplicated effort. The language is for what is expected for high-quality articles is mostly adapted from the featured article criteria.

Comprehensiveness
The article covers all significant aspects of the topic, neglecting no major facts or details and placing the subject in context. Any score from 1 to 10 is possible.
 * The article is comprehensive, going into appropriate detail about all significant aspects of the topic, and using summary style where appropriate. - 10 points
 * The article is mostly comprehensive but falls short in one or more significant aspects of the topic. - 7 points
 * The article is well-developed in some aspects but requires major expansion in others. - 4 points
 * The article goes beyond a preliminary introduction, with at least some detail beyond a brief overview, but is far from comprehensive. - 3 points
 * The article is a stub, consisting of only a paragraph or two of brief introduction to the topic. - 1 point

Sourcing
The article is well-researched. It is verifiable and cites its sources, with inline citations to reliable sources for any material that is likely to be challenged and for all quotations. Any score from 0 to 6 is possible.
 * The article is well-sourced, such that readers can determine which information comes from which source. The most appropriate source are used, including journal articles and scholarly monographs where possible. - 6 points
 * The article is mostly well-sourced, but has some material that is not sourced or does not use the most appropriate sources. - 4 points
 * A significant portion of the article is well-sourced, but the majority of it is not adequately sourced. - 2 points
 * The article contains only a bibliography, or only a small portion of the article is well-sourced. - 1 point
 * The article does not reference any reliable sources. - 0 points

Neutrality
The article has a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints.
 * The article follows the NPOV policy. - 3 points
 * The article follows the NPOV policy, with only minor exceptions. - 2 points
 * Minor exceptions include subtle imbalances in the ways different comparably significant viewpoints are described, the exclusion of minor but still significant viewpoints when all major viewpoints are covered, etc. Such an article is neutral on the whole, but may have a few small problem areas.
 * The article mostly follows the NPOV policy for the viewpoints represented, but other major viewpoints are absent - 1 point
 * The article falls significantly short of following the NPOV policy. - 0 points

Readability
The prose is engaging and of a professional standard, and there are no significant grammar problems.
 * The article has excellent style and grammar and is highly readable. - 3 points
 * The article is comprehensible and reasonably clear, but a need for copy editing is apparent. - 2 points
 * The organization, style and/or grammar of the article detract significantly from the reading experience. - 1 point
 * The article is difficult to understand and requires a thorough re-write. - 0 points

Formatting
The article is organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards and generally adheres to the manual of style.
 * The article is well-formatted and is mostly consistent with itself and with the manual of style. - 2 points
 * The article has modest deficiencies in format and/or deviates significantly from the manual of style. - 1 point
 * The article is poorly formatted such that the formatting detracts significantly from the reading experience. - 0 points

Illustrations
The article is illustrated as well as possible using images (and other media where appropriate) that follow the image use policy and have acceptable copyright status. The images are appropriately captioned.
 * The article is well-illustrated, with all or nearly all the appropriate images and captions. - 2 points
 * The article is partially illustrated, but more or better images should be added. - 1 point
 * The article has few or no illustrations, or inappropriate illustrations. - 0 points