Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Intelligent design WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about the Intelligent design and related topics. 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 {{WikiProject intelligent design}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Intelligent design articles by quality and Category:Intelligent design articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents 1 Frequently asked questions 2 Instructions 2.1 Quality scale 2.2 Importance scale 2.3 Importance assessment 2.4 Requesting an assessment 3 Assessment log 3.1 April 1, 2007 3.2 March 30, 2007 3.3 March 26, 2007 3.4 March 24, 2007 3.5 March 22, 2007 3.6 March 20, 2007 3.7 March 18, 2007 3.8 March 16, 2007 3.9 March 14, 2007 3.10 March 12, 2007 3.11 March 10, 2007 3.12 March 8, 2007 3.13 March 6, 2007 3.14 March 4, 2007 3.15 March 2, 2007 3.16 February 28, 2007 3.17 February 26, 2007 3.18 February 25, 2007 3.19 February 24, 2007 3.20 February 23, 2007 3.21 February 22, 2007 3.22 February 21, 2007 3.23 February 20, 2007 3.24 February 19, 2007 3.25 February 18, 2007 3.26 February 17, 2007 3.27 February 16, 2007 3.28 February 15, 2007 3.29 February 14, 2007 3.30 February 13, 2007 3.31 February 12, 2007 3.32 February 11, 2007 4 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 Intelligent design 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.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject intelligent design }} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject intelligent design
|class=
|importance=
|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 Intelligent design articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Intelligent design articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Intelligent design articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Intelligent design articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Intelligent design articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Intelligent design articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Intelligent design pages)

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

[edit] Quality scale

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

The 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 the Caribbean.

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.

[edit] Importance assessment

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject intelligent design}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject intelligent design| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

Top

High

Mid

Low

???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - The article is about one of the core topics of intelligent design as listed in {{Intelligent design topics}}. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Intelligent design articles
• High - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of intelligent design. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Intelligent design articles
• Mid - The article is about a topic within the intelligent design field that may or may not be commonly known outside the intelligent design community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Intelligent design articles
• Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the field of intelligent design studies and is not generally common knowledge outside that community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Intelligent design articles

We are currently discussing which articles should be counted as being of Top-importance at Wikipedia:WikiProject intelligent design/Assessment/Top-importance articles.

[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.

[edit] Assessment log

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.

This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.

[edit] April 1, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 30, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 26, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 24, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 22, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 20, 2007

• David Klinghoffer (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] March 18, 2007

• Jewish reactions to intelligent design (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] March 16, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 14, 2007

• Truth in Science (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.
• Walter ReMine (talk) Unassessed-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] March 12, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 10, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 8, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 6, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 4, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] March 2, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 28, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 26, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 25, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 24, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 23, 2007

• Intelligent design reassessed from GA-Class (Top-Class) to FA-Class (Top-Class)

[edit] February 22, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 21, 2007

• Darwin's Black Box (talk) B-Class (Mid-Class) added.

[edit] February 20, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 19, 2007

• Alvin Plantinga (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) added.
• Evolutionary argument against naturalism (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] February 18, 2007

• Jonathan Corrigan Wells (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) renamed to Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate)

[edit] February 17, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 16, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 15, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 14, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 13, 2007

• Flock of Dodos (talk) B-Class (No-Class) added.
• Haldane's dilemma (talk) B-Class (No-Class) added.
• Watchmaker analogy (talk) B-Class (No-Class) added.
• Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) added.
• Social conservatism (talk) Start-Class (No-Class) added.

[edit] February 12, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] February 11, 2007

(No changes today)

[edit] Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Contact with WP intelligent design/Assessment
Article	Importance	Date	Assessment	Version	Comments
Intelligent design [1]	Top	February 23, 2007	FA
Intelligent design movement [2]	High	December 16, 2006	A
Intelligent designer [3]	High	December 16, 2006	A
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District [4]	High	December 15, 2006	A
Irreducible complexity [5]	High	January 25, 2007	B
Objections to evolution [6]	High	January 23, 2007	B
Wedge strategy [7]	High	January 25, 2007	B
Darwin's Black Box [8]	Mid	February 21, 2007	B
Center for Science and Culture [9]		January 25, 2007	B
Creation-evolution controversy [10]		January 25, 2007	B	0.5
Discovery Institute [11]		January 25, 2007	B
Fine-tuned universe [12]		January 25, 2007	B
Flock of Dodos [13]		February 13, 2007	B
Haldane's dilemma [14]		February 13, 2007	B
Kansas evolution hearings [15]		January 25, 2007	B
Teach the Controversy [16]		January 25, 2007	B
Watchmaker analogy [17]		February 13, 2007	B
William A. Dembski [18]		January 25, 2007	B
Santorum Amendment [19]	High	January 25, 2007	Start
Specified complexity [20]	High	January 25, 2007	Start
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial documents [21]	Mid	January 25, 2007	Start
Godless: The Church of Liberalism [22]	Low	February 5, 2007	Start
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism [23]		January 25, 2007	Start
Alvin Plantinga [24]		February 19, 2007	Start
Articles related to the creation-evolution controversy [25]		January 25, 2007	Start
Baylor Institute for Faith and Learning [26]		February 13, 2007	Start
Bruce Chapman [27]		January 25, 2007	Start
Critical Analysis of Evolution [28]		January 25, 2007	Start
David Berlinski [29]		January 25, 2007	Start
Dean H. Kenyon [30]		January 25, 2007	Start
Edwin Meese [31]		January 25, 2007	Start
Evolutionary argument against naturalism [32]		February 19, 2007	Start
Forrest Mims [33]		January 25, 2007	Start
Francis J. Beckwith [34]		January 25, 2007	Start
George Gilder [35]		January 25, 2007	Start
George Weigel [36]		January 25, 2007	Start
Henry F. Schaefer, III [37]		January 25, 2007	Start
Howard Ahmanson, Jr. [38]		January 25, 2007	Start
Intelligent design in politics [39]		January 25, 2007	Start
International Society for Complexity, Information and Design [40]		January 25, 2007	Start
Jonathan Wells (intelligent design advocate) [41]		January 25, 2007	Start
Michael Behe [42]		January 25, 2007	Start
Michael Denton [43]		January 25, 2007	Start
Michael Polanyi Center [44]		January 25, 2007	Start
Mims-Pianka controversy [45]		January 25, 2007	Start
Nancy Pearcey [46]		January 25, 2007	Start
Phillip E. Johnson [47]		January 25, 2007	Start
Richard Weikart [48]		January 25, 2007	Start
Slade Gorton [49]		January 25, 2007	Start
Social conservatism [50]		February 13, 2007	Start
Stephen C. Meyer [51]		January 25, 2007	Start
Sternberg peer review controversy [52]		January 25, 2007	Start
The Design of Life [53]		January 7, 2007	Start
Theistic realism [54]		January 25, 2007	Start
Universal probability bound [55]		January 25, 2007	Start
William Lane Craig [56]		January 25, 2007	Start
Charles Thaxton [57]		January 25, 2007	Stub
Cornelius G. Hunter [58]		January 25, 2007	Stub
Guillermo Gonzalez (astronomer) [59]		January 25, 2007	Stub
J. P. Moreland [60]		January 25, 2007	Stub
List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design [61]		January 25, 2007	Stub
Paul Nelson (creationist) [62]		January 25, 2007	Stub
Raymond Bohlin [63]		January 25, 2007	Stub
Robin Collins [64]		January 25, 2007	Stub
Scott Minnich [65]		January 25, 2007	Stub
David Klinghoffer [66]		March 20, 2007	Unassessed
Jewish reactions to intelligent design [67]		March 18, 2007	Unassessed
Truth in Science [68]		March 14, 2007	Unassessed
Walter ReMine [69]		March 14, 2007	Unassessed
See also: assessed article categories.			Last update: April 1, 2007