Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics/Assessment
Genetics articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | ||
FL | 1 | 1 | |||||
FM | 13 | 13 | |||||
GA | 8 | 8 | 15 | 22 | 53 | ||
B | 24 | 65 | 99 | 128 | 6 | 322 | |
C | 25 | 108 | 315 | 580 | 93 | 1,121 | |
Start | 3 | 66 | 352 | 1,289 | 265 | 1,975 | |
Stub | 1 | 2 | 65 | 1,525 | 161 | 1,754 | |
List | 5 | 7 | 8 | 38 | 5 | 63 | |
Category | 459 | 459 | |||||
Disambig | 4 | 4 | |||||
File | 28 | 28 | |||||
Project | 38 | 38 | |||||
Redirect | 2 | 2 | 16 | 75 | 133 | 228 | |
Template | 66 | 66 | |||||
NA | 1 | 1 | |||||
Assessed | 73 | 260 | 871 | 3,658 | 747 | 525 | 6,134 |
Unassessed | 1 | 6 | 105 | 112 | |||
Total | 73 | 260 | 872 | 3,664 | 747 | 630 | 6,246 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 25,955 | Ω = 4.96 |
Welcome to the assessment department of the Genetics WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Genetics articles. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Genetics}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Genetics articles by quality and Category:Genetics articles by importance.
Frequently asked questions
edit- How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
- Just add {{WikiProject Genetics}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Anybody is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- Where can I get more comments about my article?
- Please use the main project discussion page and make a request there.
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
- Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
- How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
- A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics or article listings may be more accessible.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
Instructions
editAn article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Genetics}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Genetics|class=|importance=}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Genetics articles)
- FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Genetics articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Genetics articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Genetics articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Genetics articles)
- C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Genetics articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Genetics articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Genetics articles)
- NA (adds pages to Category:NA-Class Genetics articles; this parameter can be replaced by a more specific one, as listed below:)
- List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Genetics articles)
- Cat (adds articles to Category:Category-Class Genetics articles)
- Dab (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class Genetics articles)
- Image (adds articles to Category:File-Class Genetics articles)
- Portal (adds articles to Category:Portal-Class Genetics articles)
- Project (adds articles to Category:Project-Class Genetics articles)
- Redirect (adds articles to Category:Redirect-Class Genetics articles)
- Template (adds articles to Category:Template-Class Genetics articles)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Genetics articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
The following values may be used for the importance parameter:
- Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Genetics articles)
- High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Genetics articles)
- Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Genetics articles)
- Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Genetics articles)
The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.
Quality scale
editClass | 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.
|
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. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) |
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:
|
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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
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. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) |
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:
|
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. | Discovery of the neutron (as of April 2019) |
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
|
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. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
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. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
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:
|
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. | Ball (as of September 2014) |
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. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
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
editThe purpose of the importance rating is to direct the project's article improvement efforts towards the most important articles. The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability that the average reader of Wikipedia will look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics that are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to a student or researcher.
Rating | Criteria | Examples |
---|---|---|
Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to the field of genetics. The average reader should know about the subject. It is well studied at high school level, or has substantial recognition in the non-scientific community and in lay media. Very few articles achieve this rating. | DNA or Genetic engineering |
High | Subject is clearly notable and likely to be interesting to the average reader, if not already known. High school students may have some familiarity, or else early undergraduate students should be very familiar with the subject. Well-known diseases should be considered noteworthy too, because members of the general public often seek information. Few articles should achieve this rating. | Gregor Mendel or Allele or Cystic fibrosis |
Mid | Subject is well-established in genetics research and undergraduate study. Most major subdisciplines of genetics are included in this rating, as well as some subjects that are notable outside the scientific community. However, the subject is not generally known to the average reader. | Epigenetics or Kay Davies |
Low | Article covers a very specific area of genetics or genetics research, or is loosely associated with genetics. The subject is not generally known to many undergraduate students, and generally receives no recognition outside the scientific community. This includes most geneticists, individual genes, and gene technologies. | Impalefection or X hyperactivation |
NA | This label is used for all pages that are not articles, such as templates, categories, and disambiguation pages. (To mark an article as "needs assessment" or "not assessed," simply leave the importance parameter empty.) | Category:Genetics stubs |
Requesting an assessment
editIf you would like an article assessed by another editor or if you would like a previous article assessment reviewed, please list the article below.
Restriction map- it needs a better diagram, but the text may be adequate. Does the wiki community agree?
- Assessed as C-class and Mid-importance, per above criteria. – Liveste (talk • edits) 09:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Assessed as Start-class Low-importance Jebus989✰ 18:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Transposon: this page should be renamed into "Transposable element" (TE), and properly distinguish "DNA transposons" (class II TEs) from "retrotranspsons" (class I TEs), as it is now common in the scientific community.[1] I would also add that this topic needs to be assessed. I can participate as I know quite a bit about TEs, but I don't know the adequate procedure. Wfoolhill (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- Assessed C-class, High importance. This page does distinguish the two types of transposable element, but there may be enough material (with expansion) to allow separate articles. The article talk page is the best place to develop consensus about the name change though (name change has already been suggested here) Jebus989✰ 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Heritability especially the twin studies section
- Assessed C-class, High importance. Could be B class with better references and a tidy up Jebus989✰ 13:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
- Tay–Sachs disease, requested A class on talk page. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 13:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Genetic program - Clearly a stub, but needs an importance ratingReformedArsenal (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- De-extinction–New article, currently assessed stub class. Has 11 citations. --SamX‧☎‧✎ 14:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Proneural genes: This article was created today by NCD project (talk · contribs). I believe it is an excellent article (possibly meriting good article status), but I'm not a biologist or geneticist, so the technical details of the article are beyond me. I'd like to request a member of this team to assess the article, and if appropriate, move it on toward the good article review process. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
- Molecular epidemiology: This article was created a few years ago, but
has significant issues despite not being assessed for its quality classit's very clearly at a start class currently. In my opinion, the topic itself serves an increasingly important role within genetics and epidemiology alike and thus deserves an importance assessment. Perhaps it would qualify for mid-level importance? (Efuhrm (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC))
- Tiger eye: New article. Iamnotabunny (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
- Codon usage bias: I've done some cleaning up, added a lot of wikilinks to important concepts, and added an image and some citations. I also upgraded the article to B-class, please confer.
{{u|waddie96}} {talk}
20:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Hachimoji DNA: Not really important and definitely much less important than other similarly assessed articles X5163x (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
References
edit- ^ "A unified classification system for eukaryotic transposable elements". Nature Reviews Genetics. 2007.