Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychology articles		Importance
Psychology articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA		3	1			4
	A	2	4	2	2		10
	GA	1	4	4	1		10
	B	14	61	51	13	9	148
	Start	7	72	106	49	63	297
	Stub		20	89	37	24	170
	Assessed	24	164	253	102	96	639
	Unassessed	0	0	0	0	4	4
	Total	24	164	253	102	100	643

This is the WikiProject Psychology assessment summary page. See WP:1.0 and WP:WVWP for more information. For Psychology articles, see Category:Psychology or Category:Psychology lists. For Psychology stubs, see Category:Psychology stubs.

1 Instructions
2 Grading scheme
- 2.1 Quality scale
- 2.2 Importance scale
3 Assessment log (updated by bot)

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Psychology}} banner on its talk page.

{{WikiProject Psychology|class=|importance=}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class psychology articles)
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class psychology articles)
GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class psychology articles)
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class psychology articles)
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class psychology articles)
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class psychology articles)
NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article psychology pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed psychology articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance psychology articles)
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance psychology articles)
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance psychology articles)
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance psychology articles)

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

[edit] Grading scheme

[edit] Quality scale

Quality descriptors

**Article progress grading scheme** **[ v • d • e ]**
Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible.	Supernova (as of February 2007)
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.	Durian (as of March 2007)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.	Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.	Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.	Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & references.
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.	Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

[edit] Importance scale

Importance descriptors

The article's importance, regardless of its quality

Top	Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details
Low	Subject is peripheral knowledge, possibly trivial

"DRAFT" WikiProject Psychology importance scale: The article's importance, regardless of its quality, particularly in terms of psychology's history, principles, scope, and methods.

Rate articles on overall importance. Use the basic descriptions, guided by the general examples when available. Always give the highest rating suggested by general examples at different levels.

Top	Subject is a must-have for Category:Psychology and is considered a core topic. The article is a likely target for encyclopedic research. Psychologists and other experts in psychology will generally be well-versed on the topic, and many non-psychologists will likely have some familiarity with it. Example: Intelligence
High	Subject contributes a depth of knowledge to the field of psychology. Most experts in psychology will be familiar with the topic. The subject can be found in most academic studies of psychology, and a significant amount of published research exists for it. Example: Schizophrenia
Mid	Subject fills in more minor details but is still important to the field of psychology. Many psychologists are knowledgeable of the topic. Published research from a variety of sources exists for the subject. Example: Big Five personality traits
Low	Subject is peripheral knowledge to the field of psychology and possibly trivial but still notable. There may be limited research on the topic, or most professionals in psychology have not yet taken note of it. Example: Liberation psychology