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historical reference.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. |
Welcome | Discuss | Resources | Apply |
United States and Canada |
Wikipedia Education Program |
---|
General |
Program information |
Program support |
The results of the article quality part of the project are now available. Articles that spring 2012 students contributed to improved by an average of 6.5 points on a 26-point scale, with 87.9% of all articles showing some improvement.
We're finalizing preliminary results about what factors lead to success in classes. Please check back by October 26, 2012 for the results of this data.
This page is part of a research project the Wikimedia Foundation is running to determine the best classes to join the United States and Canada Wikipedia Education Programs.
On this page, we have taken 2-3 student articles from each class that participated in the two programs during the Spring 2012 term. The "pre" version of the article is the revision just before a student in the class made his or her first edit to the article. The "post" version is the version the article was in when the student made his or her last edit to the article. Note that the current version of the article may differ from the "post version".
Our goal with this part of the research project is to establish a baseline metric of what classes are improving Wikipedia the most.
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.
A lot of people are using this research for projects with varying timelines. To try and make the most of volunteers' time, here are some lists of articles that still need reviews, prioritized according to these timelines. Please review the articles in the following order:
Here is the page of articles that have already received 3 reviews for both the version prior to student edits as well as the version after student edits.
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. |
Welcome | Discuss | Resources | Apply |
United States and Canada |
Wikipedia Education Program |
---|
General |
Program information |
Program support |
The results of the article quality part of the project are now available. Articles that spring 2012 students contributed to improved by an average of 6.5 points on a 26-point scale, with 87.9% of all articles showing some improvement.
We're finalizing preliminary results about what factors lead to success in classes. Please check back by October 26, 2012 for the results of this data.
This page is part of a research project the Wikimedia Foundation is running to determine the best classes to join the United States and Canada Wikipedia Education Programs.
On this page, we have taken 2-3 student articles from each class that participated in the two programs during the Spring 2012 term. The "pre" version of the article is the revision just before a student in the class made his or her first edit to the article. The "post" version is the version the article was in when the student made his or her last edit to the article. Note that the current version of the article may differ from the "post version".
Our goal with this part of the research project is to establish a baseline metric of what classes are improving Wikipedia the most.
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.
A lot of people are using this research for projects with varying timelines. To try and make the most of volunteers' time, here are some lists of articles that still need reviews, prioritized according to these timelines. Please review the articles in the following order:
Here is the page of articles that have already received 3 reviews for both the version prior to student edits as well as the version after student edits.