Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 when it comes to large-scale article improvement; the opportunity costs of misdirected effort are unacceptable.
[edit] How-to
Assessing an article is easy! Before you begin you may want to look at the the Editorial Team's assessment scale with examples to get a feel for what the different ratings mean.
- Go to Category:Unassessed-Class, Unknown-importance Economics articles. This category contains the articles that need to be assessed.
- Click on an article link - this should take you to the talk page.
- 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)
- Click on the "Discussion" tab - this should return you to the talk page.
- Click the "Edit this Page" tab. You will see {{WikiProject Economics|class=|importance=}} at the top of the page.
- Fill in the tag's attributes.
- 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.
- Fill in |importance= using one of these values: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA; examples of these ratings for WikiProject Economics are below.
- You're done! (unless you want to go back and do another assessment) -- we hope you will!
Note: You can also put the tag {{WikiProject Economics}} on any economics article you come across that hasn't yet been associated with this project, this will add it to the category of unassessed articles.
The above guide to article assessments is adapted from WikiProject Business.
[edit] Quality scale
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 FA |
The article has attained featured article status.
|
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) |
||
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status.
|
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. | (needs an example) | ||
 A |
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
|
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. | None! Would you like help WP:ECON create one? | ||
 GA |
The article has attained good article status.
|
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. | 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 is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
|
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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also 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 a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
|
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 address cleanup issues. | WP:ECON is still working on reassessing articles to account for the new C-class. | ||
| Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
|
Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Macroeconomics (as of August 2008) |
||
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic.
|
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. | Redemption value (as of August 2008) |
||
| List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 aikidoka (as of June 2007) |
[edit] Priority scale
Below is a list of the priority 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.
| Label | Criteria | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Top {{Top-importance}} |
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. | Microeconomics, Inflation, Capitalism, Adam Smith |
| High {{High-importance}} |
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 distinguished economists that may not be well-known outside the field. | Imperfect competition, Gross domestic product, Robert Solow |
| Mid {{Mid-importance}} |
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 {{Low-importance}} |
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 |
