Quality: FA | A | GA | B | C | Start | Stub | Unassessed · Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown Welcome to the assessment department of the Medicine WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's medicine articles . While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPMED}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Medicine articles by quality and Category:Medicine articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. All articles under medicine project should try to adhere to Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). An article is unlikely to attract a grade above B class if it does not conform to style guideline. A Featured Article is the highest possible assessment, and requires a community consensus demonstrated at Featured Article Candidates per the guidelines of What Is a Featured Article? An A-Class Article is very well-written, nearly comprehensive and approaching excellence, but may still need minor edits and adjustments. [edit] Frequently asked questions - How can I get my article rated?
- First, make sure that the article is actually within the scope of the project (see below). If it is, you can list it in the requesting an assessment section below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of WikiProject Medicine is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.
- Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
- Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
- Where can I get more comments about my article?
- Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- Relist it as a request or contact the project.
- 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!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine directly. [edit] Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article? This project supports articles related to medicine, such as diseases, conditions, and treatments for humans. However, there are many areas of medicine that it does not support, including veterinary medicine and alternative medicine. Additionally, there are other projects that are more closely related to some articles. Here are some other projects that may be better matches for some topics: - Probably no
- Use judgment
- Health and fitness: Tag all with {{WikiProject Health and fitness}}. Add WPMED only if the article includes a significant medical component.
- Dentistry: Tag all with {{WPDENT}}. For articles generalizable to all of medicine, also use WPMED.
- Nursing: Tag all with {{WPNURSE}}. Add WPMED for articles demonstrating its interaction with medicine.
- Physicians or other healthcare workers: {{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes}}. Add WPMED only if the person is notable for substantial contributions to medicine.
- Microbes and pathogens, and infectious diseases: Infectious diseases should be tagged with WPMED. Organisms should be tagged with {{WikiProject Micro}} and, if applicable, {{WikiProject Viruses}} or {{WikiProject Fungi}} instead of WPMED. Exceptions include pathogens that cause various illnesses that do not have their own disease names and infections are treated medically to prevent progression to disease.
- Physiology: Tag with {{WikiProject Anatomy}} and/or WPMED.
- Genetics: Tag terminology, general concepts, and lab techniques with {{Wikiproject Genetics}} and/or {{WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology}}. For genetic disorders, add WPMED with medical genetics task force. Add {{EvolWikiProject}} if it has a significant evolutionary component.
- Nerves: {{WikiProject Neuroscience}} for neuroscience, lab work, non-human neurology, and ideas about how nerves work; {{WikiProject Anatomy}} for relevant anatomy; and WPMED with neurology task force for clinical practice and diseases.
- Hospitals and other medical facilities where healthcare is undertaken: Add WPMED with low-importance to the project.
- Research facilities and laboratories: Add WPMED with low-importance only if the facility conducts research significant to medicine.
- Yes
[edit] Instructions An article's assessment is generated from the parameters in the {{WPMED}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed medicine articles (empty as of November 2009). [edit] Syntax You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below. This is the rating syntax (ratings are samples, change to what applies to the article in question): - {{WPMED}} or {{WPMED|class=|importance=}}
- Displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.
- {{WPMED|class=A|importance=Top}}
- Classed A with Top priority. All assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in.
[edit] Quality assessment An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMED}} project banner on its talk page: - {{WPMED| ... | class=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article: [edit] Priority assessment An article's priority assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WPMED}} project banner on its talk page: - {{WPMED| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for the importance parameter: [edit] Task force parameters If an article is within the scope of a task force, use the code below, replacing taskforce with the name of the desired task force: - {{WPMED| ... | taskforce=Yes | taskforce-imp=???| ...}}
The following parameters may be used for the taskforce variable, with the value always being Yes: For task forces that utilize their own priority assessment, the taskforce-imp parameter should be used, replacing "taskforce" in taskforce-imp with one of the above values. Acceptable values for the taskforce-imp parameters are the same as for the importance parameter, listed above in #Priority assessment. If a taskforce is indicated, but a taskforce-imp is not given, some taskforces will use the WPMED importance, whereas others will rank it as unassessed importance for the taskforce. [edit] Quality scale WikiProject article quality grading scheme | Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |  FA | The article has attained featured article status. | More detailed criteria | | The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. - It is—
- (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
- (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
- (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
- (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
- It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
- (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
- (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
- (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
- Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
- Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
| | 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. | Tourette syndrome |  A | The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, 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:How to write a great article. 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, WikiProject Films). | | 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. | Myocardial infarction |  GA | The article has attained good article status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the good article criteria: - Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Factually accurate and verifiable:
- (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
| | 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. | Fetal alcohol syndrome |  B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the six B-Class criteria: - The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.
- The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
- The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
- The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
- The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
- The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
| | 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. | Tuberous sclerosis |  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. | More detailed criteria | | The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. | | 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. | Islets of Langerhans |  Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. | More detailed criteria | | The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. | | 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. | AIDS-related lymphoma |  Stub | A very basic description of the topic. | More detailed criteria | | The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. | | 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. | Acute care | | FL | The article has attained featured list status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the featured list criteria: - Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
- Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
- Comprehensiveness.
- (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
- (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
- Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
- Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
- Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
| | 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. | Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
(as of February 2009) |  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 medical schools in the United States |  Category | Any category falls under this class. | Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. | Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. | Category:Medicine |  Disambig | Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. | Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. | Doctor |  Template | Any template falls under this class. The most common types of template include infoboxes and navboxes. | Different types of template serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. | Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. | Template:Infobox Disease |  NA | Any non-article page that fits no other classification. | The page contains no article content, and is probably not useful to any casual reader. | Look out for mis-classified articles. Currently many NA-class articles need to be re-classified. | Portal:Medicine | [edit] Importance scale The purpose of the importance rating is to direct the project's article improvement efforts towards the most important articles, and incidentally to provide a convenient shortlist of important topics for readers who are interested in medicine generally. All diseases, conditions, medications, and tests are of "top" importance to people who are directly affected by them. 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, expert or patient. WPMED's specific guidelines for importance ratings are provided below. In making an assessment, it is often helpful to compare the article with others that already have the proposed rating. Links to each category are provided in the first column of this table: Article importance grading scheme | Label | Criteria | Examples | | Top priority | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to medicine. Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Less than 1% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating. | Tuberculosis or Cancer | | High priority | Subject is clearly notable. Subject is interesting to, or directly affects, many average readers. This category includes the most common diseases and treatments as well as major areas of specialization. Fewer than 10% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating. | Coeliac disease or Mastectomy | | Mid priority | Normal priority for article improvement. A good article would be interesting or useful to many readers. Subject is notable within its particular specialty. This category includes most medical conditions, tests, approved drugs, medical subspecialties, well-known anatomy, and common signs and symptoms. | Cholangiocarcinoma or Cramp | | Low priority | Article may only be included to cover a specific part of a more important article, or may be only loosely connected to medicine. Subject may be specific to one country or part of one country, such as licensing requirements or organizations. This category includes most of the following: very rare diseases, lesser-known medical signs, equipment, hospitals, individuals, historical information, publications, laws, investigational drugs, detailed genetic and physiological information, and obscure anatomical features. | Leopard syndrome or Flynn effect | | NA | NA means Not an Article. This label is used for all pages that are not articles, such as templates, categories, and disambiguation pages. (To mark an article as "needs assessed" or "not assessed," simply leave the importance parameter empty, like this: |importance= ) | WikiProject Medicine | [edit] Statistics [edit] Task force statistics [edit] Requesting an assessment or re-assessment - What you can accomplish here
This process is to find out whether your article is currently assessed at the correct level (Stub, Start, C, B) and correct importance (Low, Mid, High, Top). If you have significantly expanded an article and it is rated below B class, or if you feel the rating is otherwise incorrect, then please feel free to list it below. - What you can NOT accomplish here
- If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, contact Project members at WT:MED or list it at Peer review instead.
- If you think the article is particularly well written, then you can nominate it as a possible Good Article or even as a possible Featured article.
- We do not currently have a process for identifying A-class articles.
Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM
- Gulf War Syndrome. I just rewrote the article to reflect the latest comprehensive study on the subject and would like a reassessment. Notes on how to improve to FA would also be appreciated. WVBluefield (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 Y Done Still B/Mid. I left a note at the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - Micropsia. This article has just been rewritten and was rated as GA-Class on the quality scale but has yet to be rated on the importance scale. Any discussion on how to improve the article would be greatly appreciated as well. Thank you, CharlesWCIItalk 22:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Lobotomy. Hi. I've added this article to the Wikiproject:medicine psychiatry group. It's already been assessed by the neurology sub-group. Would it be possible to get the psychiatry task force to do the same? Thanks.Freekra (talk) 03:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Y Done Importance assessed as Low for WPMED, neurology, and psychiatry. Typically, history of medicine and historical procedures are assessed as low, as they are not related to the current practice of medicine. --Scott Alter 04:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick response. Freekra (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
|
