This
WikiProject is defunct. It has been merged into or replaced by WikiProject United States Government. Consider participating in that or looking for related projects such as WikiProject Politics/American politics for help or ask at the Teahouse. If you feel this project may be worth reviving,
please discuss with related projects first. Feel free to change this tag if the parameters were changed in error.
|
Welcome | Online Ambassadors | Campus Ambassadors | Courses | Leaderboard | News | Assessment |
Project Research Update | watch
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
10 June 2011 - The final assessment went out to both Wikipedians and policy assessors!
15 April 2011 - The first assessment for spring term is nearly complete. THANK YOU Assessment Team!!! The second assessment round will go out next week. The spring term has a lot of interesting topics and many participants, so it looks like the project is having a substantial impact on public policy content.
24 January 2011 - A summary of results from the metric assessment is posted. A full report is coming soon to the outreach wiki.
22 December 2010 - The final round of assessments for this semester is ready. This one will work like the previous round: assessors choose the articles. This is the same set of articles from the Student Pre Assessment; look for big improvements in the articles!
13 December 2010 – The student post assessment requests will be posted here next week, as students are finishing classes this week. Researcher Amy is back from maternity leave and working to get caught up. For assessment team members: email Amy if you would like some recent pics of her daughter!
18 November 2010 – Another round of assessments is available. This round measures the quality of articles students are working on at the revision prior to when the students made their first edits.
3 November 2010 – The next round of assessments is out! Active assessors should see a message on their talk pages. This time, we're letting assessors pick the topics from a randomly selected list.
20 October 2010 – LiAnna Davis ( User:Ldavis (Public Policy)) is temporarily taking over assessment while Amy Roth is on maternity leave. All current assessments should be completed by the end of this week. Look for new assessments in November.
14 October 2010 – Preliminary data analysis shows consistent assessment results among Wikipedia reviewers. The next step of the first assessment is to compare Wikipedian results to subject matter expert results. More info.
Article quality assessment is the primary research goal for the WikiProject: United States Public Policy page. As the basis for evaluation overall article quality improvement, article assessment is essential to the Public Policy Initiative (PPI).
Are you interested in research and assessment or just looking to help out? Here's a list of tasks with varying skill and commitment levels, so everyone can participate!
United States Public Policy pages by quality | |
---|---|
Quality | |
Total | |
Assessed | 0 |
Total | 0 |
At the start of the project, participants worked together to create a quantitative metric so that we could measure improvement in article quality. This quantitative metric shows consistent results among Wikipedians, results in ratings that align with the
1.0 Assessment ratings, and most importantly captures Wikipedia principles, especially
neutrality and
article quality.
There are two ways to tag articles for WP:USPP, for the article quality rating metric described on this page, paste this code on an article's talk page:
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy
|class = <!-- a class specified here overrides the automatic rating based on the numerical scores -->
|importance = <!-- this works just like the usual WikiProject importance ratings -->
|comprehensiveness = <!-- 1-10 -->
|sourcing = <!-- 0-6 -->
|neutrality = <!-- 0-3 -->
|readability = <!-- 0-3 -->
|formatting = <!-- 0-2 -->
|illustrations = <!-- 0-2 -->
}}
which produces output like this:
You can also use the standard assessment ratings
to tag articles using just the class parameter instead of the quantitative metric tag:
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy
|class=
|importance=
}}
This rubric is based Wikipedia's policies and expectations for high-quality articles. It has detailed breakdowns of scores for different aspects of article quality, but it also can translate into the standard Stub/Start/C/B scale and thus feed into the 1.0 assessment system without too much duplicated effort. The language is for what is expected for high-quality articles is mostly adapted from the featured article criteria.
Assessment area | Scoring methods | Score |
---|---|---|
Comprehensiveness | Score based on how fully the article covers significant aspects of the topic. | 1-10 |
Sourcing | Score based on adequacy of inline citations and quality of sources relative to what is available. | 0-6 |
Neutrality | Score based on adherence to the Neutral Point of View policy. Scores decline rapidly with any problems with neutrality. | 0-3 |
Readability | Score based on how readable and well-written the article is. | 0-3 |
Formatting | Score based on quality of the article's layout and basic adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style | 0-2 |
Illustrations | Score based on how adequately the article is illustrated, within the constraints of acceptable copyright status. | 0-2 |
Total | 1-26 |
The article covers all significant aspects of the topic, neglecting no major facts or details and placing the subject in context. Any score from 1 to 10 is possible.
The article is well-researched. It is verifiable and cites its sources, with inline citations to reliable sources for any material that is likely to be challenged and for all quotations. Any score from 0 to 6 is possible.
The article has a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints.
The prose is engaging and of a professional standard, and there are no significant grammar problems.
The article is organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards and generally adheres to the manual of style.
The article is illustrated as well as possible using images (and other media where appropriate) that follow the image use policy and have acceptable copyright status. The images are appropriately captioned and have alt text.
Numerical scores can be translated into the different classes on the 1.0 assessment scale. For the lower classes, comprehensiveness and sourcing are the main things that differentiate articles of different classes; things like neutrality, style, layout, and illustrations quickly become important as well for the higher tiers of the assessment scale. GA-class and higher require separate reviews, but high numerical scores can indicate whether an article is a likely candidate for one of these ratings. For everything except GA and FA, the ratings are automatically determined by the banner template if detailed scores are present.
The first assessment performed by the WP:USPP assessment team tested the quantitative article quality metric. Three main conclusions can be drawn from the metric assessment.
The assessment team is crucial to the success of the PPI. Their work uses a quantifiable measurement of Wikipedia article quality. Their work shows that Wikipedia assessment of article quality is tougher and more consistent than non-Wikipedian subject matter expert assessment. Their work helps define success of the project. In addition to the Wikipedia assessors listed below there are a few subject matter experts who assess via a Google Group.
If you would like to join the Assessment Team, your participation is welcome, contact ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk · contribs).
The first assessment request is posted! Things are pretty exciting this term: LOTS of interesting topics and students are making some big improvements to content. The assessment team sees firsthand the impact of the project.
Evaluation of the Public Policy Initiative has several layers. More information about evaluation and research for this project can be found on the Evaluation and Research page of the outreach wiki. For more context on article quality experiments, see " Experiments with article assessment" from The Signpost, 2010-09-13. For an overview of the Public Policy Initiative in general, see " Introducing the Public Policy Initiative" from the 2010-06-28 issue. If you would like to participate in project evaluation at a deeper level, please join the discussion on the outreach wiki or contact ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk · contribs).
This
WikiProject is defunct. It has been merged into or replaced by WikiProject United States Government. Consider participating in that or looking for related projects such as WikiProject Politics/American politics for help or ask at the Teahouse. If you feel this project may be worth reviving,
please discuss with related projects first. Feel free to change this tag if the parameters were changed in error.
|
Welcome | Online Ambassadors | Campus Ambassadors | Courses | Leaderboard | News | Assessment |
Project Research Update | watch
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
10 June 2011 - The final assessment went out to both Wikipedians and policy assessors!
15 April 2011 - The first assessment for spring term is nearly complete. THANK YOU Assessment Team!!! The second assessment round will go out next week. The spring term has a lot of interesting topics and many participants, so it looks like the project is having a substantial impact on public policy content.
24 January 2011 - A summary of results from the metric assessment is posted. A full report is coming soon to the outreach wiki.
22 December 2010 - The final round of assessments for this semester is ready. This one will work like the previous round: assessors choose the articles. This is the same set of articles from the Student Pre Assessment; look for big improvements in the articles!
13 December 2010 – The student post assessment requests will be posted here next week, as students are finishing classes this week. Researcher Amy is back from maternity leave and working to get caught up. For assessment team members: email Amy if you would like some recent pics of her daughter!
18 November 2010 – Another round of assessments is available. This round measures the quality of articles students are working on at the revision prior to when the students made their first edits.
3 November 2010 – The next round of assessments is out! Active assessors should see a message on their talk pages. This time, we're letting assessors pick the topics from a randomly selected list.
20 October 2010 – LiAnna Davis ( User:Ldavis (Public Policy)) is temporarily taking over assessment while Amy Roth is on maternity leave. All current assessments should be completed by the end of this week. Look for new assessments in November.
14 October 2010 – Preliminary data analysis shows consistent assessment results among Wikipedia reviewers. The next step of the first assessment is to compare Wikipedian results to subject matter expert results. More info.
Article quality assessment is the primary research goal for the WikiProject: United States Public Policy page. As the basis for evaluation overall article quality improvement, article assessment is essential to the Public Policy Initiative (PPI).
Are you interested in research and assessment or just looking to help out? Here's a list of tasks with varying skill and commitment levels, so everyone can participate!
United States Public Policy pages by quality | |
---|---|
Quality | |
Total | |
Assessed | 0 |
Total | 0 |
At the start of the project, participants worked together to create a quantitative metric so that we could measure improvement in article quality. This quantitative metric shows consistent results among Wikipedians, results in ratings that align with the
1.0 Assessment ratings, and most importantly captures Wikipedia principles, especially
neutrality and
article quality.
There are two ways to tag articles for WP:USPP, for the article quality rating metric described on this page, paste this code on an article's talk page:
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy
|class = <!-- a class specified here overrides the automatic rating based on the numerical scores -->
|importance = <!-- this works just like the usual WikiProject importance ratings -->
|comprehensiveness = <!-- 1-10 -->
|sourcing = <!-- 0-6 -->
|neutrality = <!-- 0-3 -->
|readability = <!-- 0-3 -->
|formatting = <!-- 0-2 -->
|illustrations = <!-- 0-2 -->
}}
which produces output like this:
You can also use the standard assessment ratings
to tag articles using just the class parameter instead of the quantitative metric tag:
{{WikiProject United States Public Policy
|class=
|importance=
}}
This rubric is based Wikipedia's policies and expectations for high-quality articles. It has detailed breakdowns of scores for different aspects of article quality, but it also can translate into the standard Stub/Start/C/B scale and thus feed into the 1.0 assessment system without too much duplicated effort. The language is for what is expected for high-quality articles is mostly adapted from the featured article criteria.
Assessment area | Scoring methods | Score |
---|---|---|
Comprehensiveness | Score based on how fully the article covers significant aspects of the topic. | 1-10 |
Sourcing | Score based on adequacy of inline citations and quality of sources relative to what is available. | 0-6 |
Neutrality | Score based on adherence to the Neutral Point of View policy. Scores decline rapidly with any problems with neutrality. | 0-3 |
Readability | Score based on how readable and well-written the article is. | 0-3 |
Formatting | Score based on quality of the article's layout and basic adherence to the Wikipedia Manual of Style | 0-2 |
Illustrations | Score based on how adequately the article is illustrated, within the constraints of acceptable copyright status. | 0-2 |
Total | 1-26 |
The article covers all significant aspects of the topic, neglecting no major facts or details and placing the subject in context. Any score from 1 to 10 is possible.
The article is well-researched. It is verifiable and cites its sources, with inline citations to reliable sources for any material that is likely to be challenged and for all quotations. Any score from 0 to 6 is possible.
The article has a neutral point of view, accurately representing significant points of view on the topic without advocating or placing inappropriate weight on particular viewpoints.
The prose is engaging and of a professional standard, and there are no significant grammar problems.
The article is organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards and generally adheres to the manual of style.
The article is illustrated as well as possible using images (and other media where appropriate) that follow the image use policy and have acceptable copyright status. The images are appropriately captioned and have alt text.
Numerical scores can be translated into the different classes on the 1.0 assessment scale. For the lower classes, comprehensiveness and sourcing are the main things that differentiate articles of different classes; things like neutrality, style, layout, and illustrations quickly become important as well for the higher tiers of the assessment scale. GA-class and higher require separate reviews, but high numerical scores can indicate whether an article is a likely candidate for one of these ratings. For everything except GA and FA, the ratings are automatically determined by the banner template if detailed scores are present.
The first assessment performed by the WP:USPP assessment team tested the quantitative article quality metric. Three main conclusions can be drawn from the metric assessment.
The assessment team is crucial to the success of the PPI. Their work uses a quantifiable measurement of Wikipedia article quality. Their work shows that Wikipedia assessment of article quality is tougher and more consistent than non-Wikipedian subject matter expert assessment. Their work helps define success of the project. In addition to the Wikipedia assessors listed below there are a few subject matter experts who assess via a Google Group.
If you would like to join the Assessment Team, your participation is welcome, contact ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk · contribs).
The first assessment request is posted! Things are pretty exciting this term: LOTS of interesting topics and students are making some big improvements to content. The assessment team sees firsthand the impact of the project.
Evaluation of the Public Policy Initiative has several layers. More information about evaluation and research for this project can be found on the Evaluation and Research page of the outreach wiki. For more context on article quality experiments, see " Experiments with article assessment" from The Signpost, 2010-09-13. For an overview of the Public Policy Initiative in general, see " Introducing the Public Policy Initiative" from the 2010-06-28 issue. If you would like to participate in project evaluation at a deeper level, please join the discussion on the outreach wiki or contact ARoth (Public Policy Initiative) ( talk · contribs).