This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject HumanâComputer Interaction/Assessment page. |
|
![]() | HumanâComputer Interaction Unassessed ( inactive) | ||||||
|
Notes about assessment techniques used by other wikiprojects. These notes will help establish best practices that may be of use to Wikiproject HCI. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Aconversationalone ( talk ⢠contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Literature/Assessment#Quality_scale Assessment for Literature: The grading scheme is well formatted and informational. For each grade it lists the Criteria, Reader's experience, Editing suggestions and gives an example of an article with that grade. I think the page can be formatted to be more organized, right now it just seems like a lot of lists with bullet points. Another aspect this page is missing, is a description of importance levels. I was able to find lists for the topics under each level, but wasn't able to find a description of why the articles were placed where they were. Maee10 ( talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Assessment Assessment for WikiProject Plants: The format that the grading scheme follows for WikiProject Plants is identical to the one that is followed by WikiProject Literature, which tells me that this is a template that pages can use for assessment. I, too, like this table because it's clear and easy to read and makes it simple to understand the guidelines for grading a page. Another thing that's really neat about this assessment page is that they have a graph showing the article assessment history for the project. Unfortunately, that graph ends at 2009, which I suppose either means that there has been no activity on this project since that time, or else the graph no longer works. In addition, this page does not have the FAQ section that the Literature page has, and I think that a section like this would be extremely helpful, especially to newbies. Marge6914 ( talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_of_the_United_Kingdom/Assessment Assessment for Music of the United Kingdom: The content is very in detail and the format is pretty organized in WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom, which is similarly to the example of Wikiproject Cats. The assessment log is useful in my opinion because new people can clearly see the process of the assessment and reassessment together with the usernames of each participant. If they have different opinions, they can contact in each other's user talk page and then make discussions to reassess together. Something I think needs to be improved is graphic models can be clearer for people to understand than the table. Weariness ( talk) 02:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment Assessment for Medicine: The grading scheme follows the same scheme as the previous listed assessment examples, but it also lists and related article at the end of each new row to increase a user's understanding of a table. One thing in particular I liked about WikiProject Medicine's (WPMED) assessment page was its clear importance of examples and its guidelines for adding new articles to the scope of WPMED's scope. Like some of the other assessment pages, it also has a FAQ section and I think it does a good job of answering questions for new users. The organization of the page is somewhat lacking however, and I would have liked to see better organization of the statistics for all the different task force sub-groups of WPMED. Tannermp ( talk) 05:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture/Assessment Assessment for Architecture: The grading scheme is well formated, with the criteria, readers' experiences, editing suggestions, and examples in it. The overall content is clear and informed. It also provides the assessment instructions, related projects, and the articles request for assessment. However, there are too many unassessed articles (3042). In addition, one request for A status in the end of the page established in 2007 is still not solved. In general, the organization of this page is very good. Most of the articles need to be assessed are recently posted and three of them already done, which mean that the project members are still involved in this project. Candice Juan ( talk) 18:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment Assessment for Military History: The introduction shows a flowchart with two different quality rating schemes; one for prose articles and one for non-prose (list) articles. To the right of the flowchart is information that clearly describes the classifications of articles along with their natural progression from the "stub" stage. Directly below the flowchart is the breakdown for the various criteria. The article assessment information seems to be very well laid out, having the flowchart near the top of the page followed by an introduction to their project's assessment methodology and then moving on to the specific criteria involved in the process. JLand13 ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars/Assessment Assessment for Star Wars: The grading table is quite similar to that of WikiProject Cats. In fact, it may be due to their mutual work in conjunction with the program WP:1.0. Instructions for quality and importance rating are listed below the the table of historical data for the project and allow a user to easily add an article properly to the project. However, the formatting for the list of assessed/unassessed/reassessed articles is horrendous, making the table of contents stretch on and on. It would save quite a lot of room to re-organize these assessments into a table by month, with each month being linked to the table of contents, instead of each individual day (though assessments should remain time-stamped). Pgrobison ( talk) 23:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Science/Assessment Assessment for History of Science: This page has many of the standard grading scales found among the other pages and I feel organizes them well without too much extra clutter. I feel the revision logs found on many of the assessment pages take up so much room they often merit their own separate page for easier navigation. The History of Science page also gives user experience's and suggestions on how to place articles in each individual category. Overall I feel this page can give a user a good start without having too much extra fluff to add confusion. Benilsen ( talk) â Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Robotics/Assessment Assessment of Robotics: The robotics page includes a clear explanation of their assessment policy including how ratings are done in a distributive manner with appropriate categories.The page also include the a grading table with examples and guidelines following Wikipedias standards. Also included on the page are links to other robotic wiki pages which is a smart way to get a reader more involved holistically with their effort. One downside to the page is the long log navigation table and assessments logs at then bottom. It takes up a lot of space and require extensive scrolling. This maybe a result of Wikipedia's UI and not the fault of the owners. DDS6619 ( talk) â Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Assessment Assessment of Baseball: This page has a set of criteria for each class of assessment as well as how an article rated at each class should read, what level of editing suggestions there are, and an example to an article with that rating. The page also includes a general FAQ section about general rules for assessment that applies to both assessors and authors. It also has a nice table of contents that links to the different sections of the page and other parts of the Baseball WikiPorject. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.177.183 ( talk) 17:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
â Preceding unsigned comment added by DDS6619 ( talk ⢠contribs) 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Extra articles up for discussion in case anyone wanted to take on some more with me. JLand13 ( talk) 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Computer-supported cooperative work
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject HumanâComputer Interaction/Assessment page. |
|
![]() | HumanâComputer Interaction Unassessed ( inactive) | ||||||
|
Notes about assessment techniques used by other wikiprojects. These notes will help establish best practices that may be of use to Wikiproject HCI. â Preceding unsigned comment added by Aconversationalone ( talk ⢠contribs) 18:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Literature/Assessment#Quality_scale Assessment for Literature: The grading scheme is well formatted and informational. For each grade it lists the Criteria, Reader's experience, Editing suggestions and gives an example of an article with that grade. I think the page can be formatted to be more organized, right now it just seems like a lot of lists with bullet points. Another aspect this page is missing, is a description of importance levels. I was able to find lists for the topics under each level, but wasn't able to find a description of why the articles were placed where they were. Maee10 ( talk) 20:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Assessment Assessment for WikiProject Plants: The format that the grading scheme follows for WikiProject Plants is identical to the one that is followed by WikiProject Literature, which tells me that this is a template that pages can use for assessment. I, too, like this table because it's clear and easy to read and makes it simple to understand the guidelines for grading a page. Another thing that's really neat about this assessment page is that they have a graph showing the article assessment history for the project. Unfortunately, that graph ends at 2009, which I suppose either means that there has been no activity on this project since that time, or else the graph no longer works. In addition, this page does not have the FAQ section that the Literature page has, and I think that a section like this would be extremely helpful, especially to newbies. Marge6914 ( talk) 20:36, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music_of_the_United_Kingdom/Assessment Assessment for Music of the United Kingdom: The content is very in detail and the format is pretty organized in WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom, which is similarly to the example of Wikiproject Cats. The assessment log is useful in my opinion because new people can clearly see the process of the assessment and reassessment together with the usernames of each participant. If they have different opinions, they can contact in each other's user talk page and then make discussions to reassess together. Something I think needs to be improved is graphic models can be clearer for people to understand than the table. Weariness ( talk) 02:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment Assessment for Medicine: The grading scheme follows the same scheme as the previous listed assessment examples, but it also lists and related article at the end of each new row to increase a user's understanding of a table. One thing in particular I liked about WikiProject Medicine's (WPMED) assessment page was its clear importance of examples and its guidelines for adding new articles to the scope of WPMED's scope. Like some of the other assessment pages, it also has a FAQ section and I think it does a good job of answering questions for new users. The organization of the page is somewhat lacking however, and I would have liked to see better organization of the statistics for all the different task force sub-groups of WPMED. Tannermp ( talk) 05:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Architecture/Assessment Assessment for Architecture: The grading scheme is well formated, with the criteria, readers' experiences, editing suggestions, and examples in it. The overall content is clear and informed. It also provides the assessment instructions, related projects, and the articles request for assessment. However, there are too many unassessed articles (3042). In addition, one request for A status in the end of the page established in 2007 is still not solved. In general, the organization of this page is very good. Most of the articles need to be assessed are recently posted and three of them already done, which mean that the project members are still involved in this project. Candice Juan ( talk) 18:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment Assessment for Military History: The introduction shows a flowchart with two different quality rating schemes; one for prose articles and one for non-prose (list) articles. To the right of the flowchart is information that clearly describes the classifications of articles along with their natural progression from the "stub" stage. Directly below the flowchart is the breakdown for the various criteria. The article assessment information seems to be very well laid out, having the flowchart near the top of the page followed by an introduction to their project's assessment methodology and then moving on to the specific criteria involved in the process. JLand13 ( talk) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Star_Wars/Assessment Assessment for Star Wars: The grading table is quite similar to that of WikiProject Cats. In fact, it may be due to their mutual work in conjunction with the program WP:1.0. Instructions for quality and importance rating are listed below the the table of historical data for the project and allow a user to easily add an article properly to the project. However, the formatting for the list of assessed/unassessed/reassessed articles is horrendous, making the table of contents stretch on and on. It would save quite a lot of room to re-organize these assessments into a table by month, with each month being linked to the table of contents, instead of each individual day (though assessments should remain time-stamped). Pgrobison ( talk) 23:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_History_of_Science/Assessment Assessment for History of Science: This page has many of the standard grading scales found among the other pages and I feel organizes them well without too much extra clutter. I feel the revision logs found on many of the assessment pages take up so much room they often merit their own separate page for easier navigation. The History of Science page also gives user experience's and suggestions on how to place articles in each individual category. Overall I feel this page can give a user a good start without having too much extra fluff to add confusion. Benilsen ( talk) â Preceding undated comment added 00:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Robotics/Assessment Assessment of Robotics: The robotics page includes a clear explanation of their assessment policy including how ratings are done in a distributive manner with appropriate categories.The page also include the a grading table with examples and guidelines following Wikipedias standards. Also included on the page are links to other robotic wiki pages which is a smart way to get a reader more involved holistically with their effort. One downside to the page is the long log navigation table and assessments logs at then bottom. It takes up a lot of space and require extensive scrolling. This maybe a result of Wikipedia's UI and not the fault of the owners. DDS6619 ( talk) â Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Baseball/Assessment Assessment of Baseball: This page has a set of criteria for each class of assessment as well as how an article rated at each class should read, what level of editing suggestions there are, and an example to an article with that rating. The page also includes a general FAQ section about general rules for assessment that applies to both assessors and authors. It also has a nice table of contents that links to the different sections of the page and other parts of the Baseball WikiPorject. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.177.183 ( talk) 17:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
â Preceding unsigned comment added by DDS6619 ( talk ⢠contribs) 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Extra articles up for discussion in case anyone wanted to take on some more with me. JLand13 ( talk) 23:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Computer-supported cooperative work