Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment
| Evolutionary biology articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 FA
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 12 | |||
 GA
|
11 | 17 | 23 | 23 | 1 | 75 | |
| B | 5 | 35 | 51 | 57 | 5 | 153 | |
| C | 4 | 57 | 95 | 201 | 20 | 377 | |
| Start | 1 | 30 | 104 | 260 | 34 | 429 | |
| Stub | 13 | 111 | 11 | 135 | |||
| List | 3 | 3 | 4 | 12 | 22 | ||
| NA | 1 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 273 | 295 | |
| Assessed | 31 | 148 | 295 | 680 | 273 | 71 | 1,498 |
| Unassessed | 2 | 1 | 28 | 31 | |||
| Total | 31 | 148 | 297 | 681 | 273 | 99 | 1,529 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 5,072 | Ω = 4.29 | |||||
Welcome to the assessment department of the Evolutionary biology WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about Evolutionary biology or the people of Evolutionary biology. 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 {{EvolWikiProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Evolutionary biology articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Frequently asked questions
edit- 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 Evolutionary biology WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- 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.
Instructions
editAn article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{EvolWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:
{{EvolWikiProject
|class=
|attention=
|collaboration-candidate=
|past-collaboration=
|peer-review=
|old-peer-review=
|needs-infobox=
}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Evolutionary biology articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Evolutionary biology articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Evolutionary biology articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Evolutionary biology articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Evolutionary biology articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Evolutionary biology articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Evolutionary biology pages)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Evolutionary biology articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Quality scale
edit| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 Wikipedia's 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.
|
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) |
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
|
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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
 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 meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria
A good article is:
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | 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 April 2019) |
| B | The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria
|
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. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
| C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains 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, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
|
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 | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
|
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. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | 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. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
| List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 literary movements |
Importance scale
editThe criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Evolutionary biology.
Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.
| Status | Template | Meaning of Status |
|---|---|---|
| Top | {{Top-Class}} | This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information. |
| High | {{High-Class}} | This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge. |
| Mid | {{Mid-Class}} | This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. |
| Low | {{Low-Class}} | This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia. |
| None | None | This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed. |
We are currently discussing which articles should be counted as being of Top-importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology/Assessment/Top-importance articles.
Requesting an assessment
editIf 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.
- Ovulatory shift hypothesis
- Allopatric speciation: Since its last rating, the article has been rewritten, significantly expanded, a is almost entirely comprehensive. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Peripatric speciation: This article includes nearly all the widely acknowledged literature on the subject and is highly comprehensive. Before December 4th, 2018, the article was in need of desperate attention. It is now a fully structured article. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Parapatric speciation: This article still needs some work even after I improved it. However, it is relatively comprehensive and needs review. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Reinforcement (speciation): This article did not even exist until recently (except in the form of Wallace effect). It is entirely comprehensive with up-to-date information. It was reviewed previously but may need a new review. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- History of speciation: Has not yet been reviewed and given a rating. It is not comprehensive and needs more work. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 23:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- Laboratory experiments of speciation: Probably list class. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 03:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Assessment log
edit- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.
November 5, 2024
editAssessed
edit- Empathy-altruism (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
November 4, 2024
editReassessed
edit- Martha M. Muñoz (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
November 3, 2024
editRemoved
editNovember 1, 2024
editAssessed
edit- A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- David Reich (geneticist) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Dysgenics (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Generalist Genes hypothesis (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Template:Genetic engineering (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Genetics of social behavior (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Gene–environment interaction (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Heritability (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Heritability of IQ (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Heritability of autism (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Human Diversity Foundation (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Human genetic variation (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Human genetics (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Medical genetics of Jews (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Missing heritability problem (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Mutagenesis (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Mutation rate (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Mutational meltdown (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Psychiatric genetics (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- The Gene Bomb (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- The g Factor: General Intelligence and Its Implications (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
- Thrifty gene hypothesis (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
Worklist
edit- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
 | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.