|
WikiProject Philosophy : Assessment (Talk) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Categories: Articles by quality (FA, A, GA, B, Start, Stub, Unassessed) • Articles by importance (Top, High, Mid, Low, Unassessed) • Unassessed task force • Articles needing attention • Requests for peer review
|
|
Welcome to the assessment department of the Philosophy WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Philosophy 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 {{Philosophy}}
project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Philosophy articles by quality and Category:Philosophy articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
[edit] 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 Philosophy 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.
[edit] Instructions
[edit] Quality assessments
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Philosophy}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{Philosophy| ... | class=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
| Template |
| Disambig |
| Category |
| List |
| NA |
For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Philosophy articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Philosophy articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.
[edit] Quality scale
[edit] Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{Philosophy}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Philosophy| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
[edit] Importance scale
| Label |
Criteria |
Reader's experience |
Editor's experience |
Example |
| Top |
The article is one of the core topics about philosophy. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are are included as sections of the main Philosophy article. |
A reader who is not involved in the philosophy field will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. |
Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. |
Philosophy |
| High |
The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding philosophy. |
| Mid |
The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of philosophy. |
Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. |
Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand philosophy. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in the history of philosophy will be rated in this level. |
|
| Low |
The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of philosophy. |
Few readers outside the philosophy field or that are not philosophy students may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. |
Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of philosophy, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of philosophy. |
|
[edit] 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.
- Rights of Englishmen I found this article as is, which is a bit of a mess. Haven't made many edits to it yet, but need a baseline assessment, particularly for importance.
- Naive realism This article is currently rated Start-Class and mid-importance however it has changed from a few unreferenced paragraphs into my best effort to quote from philosophical and scientific sources with full references. The assembled narrative tells a very profound story about our relationship with the idea of 'reality' and our current best understanding of this within philosophy, quantum physics and virtual reality. BUT I am not a 'professional' philosopher and this is my first wikipedia edit so please check it out :)
Public Sphere This article has never been rated by the philosophy project. I have made extensive edits to the page, and would like to get it rated and possably an outside view on the article itself. Coffeepusher (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- A C Grayling This article is currently ranked of low importance. I propose this be raised to mid importance. Grayling is one of Britain's leading philosophers, and certainly the most well-known. 86.27.59.185 (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The Missing Shade of Blue never been assessed. 19:00, 15 February 2008- John Hick. I have completely rewritten this article. During my research, I've noticed he has been called the most important philosopher of religion in the 20th century. Currently, he is assessed as low importance. Because of his wide notability, I think this should be reassessed as Mid. Thanks. Hazillow (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Theophrastus. This article has tripled in length in the past month, it might deserve a higher rating than Start. I'm biased, but I can't help thinking that the low-importance rating is badly wrong too. Singinglemon (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Yehouda Shenhav. New article, mostly translated from the Hebrew Wikipedia. I tagged it, but the bot didn't list it. -- Nudve (talk) 06:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
- Tetrapharmakos. I created this page a while ago and it hasn't changed much, so I think it needs to be assessed. Thanks. LCecere (talk) 03:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- Pain (philosophy). The current medical collaboration of the week on Pain turned up a few controversies surrounding the subject. the article is linked to but wasn't previously tagged as part of the philosophy project, I have no idea how philosophically sound or if it might be philosophy of suffering as a more apt title, it would be useful to know whilst the pain and suffering articles find their places LeeVJ (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wisdom has not recieved an importance rating. The philosophy section of Wisdom has has no references for over a year. If Wisdom is of low importance to the Philosophy project, I wish to remove uncited material. If Wisdom is of high importance to the Philosophy project, I wish to ask an expert to provide references for the philosophy portion of Wisdom. (How would I make that request?) Thanks. --Dr.enh (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- Naturalized epistemology. A group, which includes myself and several of my classmates, has recently expanded this article as part of an academic course assignment. We were hoping that the quality of work was sufficient enough to warrant reclassification above the stub class. Thanks. --Adam.gschwender (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
|
