Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low

WikiProject Medicine
Navigation
Project page	talk
Manual of Style	talk
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ FA review	talk
Task forces	talk
→ Reproductive medicine	talk
Open tasks
→ Collaboration of the Week	talk
→ Nominations for deletion
→ Pages needing attention
→ Needing expert attention
→ Requested articles
→ Cleanup listing (top imp.)
Stub sorting	talk
Categories
→ Project
→ Articles by quality
→ Articles by importance
Participants	talk
Portal	talk
· changes

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.

Contents 1 Frequently asked questions 2 Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article? 3 Instructions 3.1 Syntax 3.2 Quality assessment 3.3 Priority assessment 3.4 Optional parameters 4 Quality scale 5 Importance scale 6 Requesting an assessment or re-assessment 7 Worklist

Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 

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.

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 articles:

Probably yes

• Articles on medications: Tag all of these with {{WikiProject Pharmacology}}. Add WPMED if the drug has been used in humans.
• Articles about human anatomy: both {{WikiProject Anatomy}} and WPMED. Other tags may also be appropriate.
• Articles related to the eye: both {{OphthoWikiProject}} and WPMED.
• Articles related to human pathology: both {{PathWikiProject}} and WPMED.
• Articles related to dentistry: both {{WPDENT}} and WPMED.
• Articles related to nursing: both {{WPNURSE}} and WPMED.
• Articles about genetic diseases: both {{MedGen}} and WPMED.
• Articles about physicians or other healthcare workers: {{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes}}. Add WPMED only if the person's notability relates to medicine.

In general, all articles tagged for {{WikiProject Anatomy}}, {{WPDENT}}, {{WikiProject Neurology}}, {{WPNURSE}}, {{OphthoWikiProject}}, or {{MedGen}} should also have a WPMED tag.

Probably no

• Articles on alternative medicine: Generally, tag these with {{WikiProject Alternative Medicine}} instead of WPMED. Major articles may be supported by both projects.
• Articles about non-human medicine and microbes that do not cause diseases in humans: Use {{WikiProject Veterinary medicine}} or {{WikiProject Plants}} instead of WPMED.
• Articles about science in general or the scientific method: Use {{WikiProject Notice|Science}} instead of WPMED unless the connection to medicine is clearly obvious to the reader.

Use judgement

• Articles about viruses: Tag all with {{Wikiproject Viruses}}. Add WPMED only if the virus causes diseases in humans.
• Articles related to genetics (other than genetic diseases): Tag terminology, general concepts, and lab techniques with {{Wikiproject Genetics}} and/or {{WikiProject MCB}} instead of WPMED. Major articles may be supported by all projects. Add {{EvolWikiProject}} if it has a significant evolutionary component.
• Articles related to nerves: {{WPNEURO}} for neuroscience, lab work, non-human neurology, and ideas about how nerves work; both {{WikiProject Neurology}} and WPMED for clinical practice and diseases; and both {{WikiProject Anatomy}} and WPMED for relevant anatomy.

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-Class medicine articles (empty as of March 2008).

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.

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:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class medicine articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class medicine articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class medicine articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class medicine articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class medicine articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class medicine articles)
• List (adds articles to Category:List-Class medicine articles)
• Template (adds templates to Category:Template-Class medicine articles)
• Dab (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class medicine articles)
• Category (adds categories to Category:Category-Class medicine articles and automatically sets importance=NA)
• NA (for pages, such as portals or project pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class medicine articles). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable.

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:

• Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance medicine articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance medicine articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance medicine articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance medicine articles)
• NA (for pages, such as categories, templates, and disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-importance medicine articles). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable.

Optional parameters

{{WPMED| ... | nested=???| ...}}

• yes ( the template is nested inside {{WikiProjectBannerShell}})

{{WPMED| ... | auto=???| ...}}

• yes (This parameter is for the use of bots which are auto-assessing articles which contain stub templates as Stub-Class. It populates Category:WikiProject Medicine automatically assessed articles.)

Quality scale

WikiProject article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	The article has obtained Featured article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. 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; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, 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 headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] 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 and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions 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
FL {{FL-Class}}	The article has obtained Featured list status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. 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.			FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A {{A-Class}}	The article is well organized and is essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere, as described here. More detailed 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 {{GA-Class}}	The article has obtained Good article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the good article criteria: It is 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.[2] It is factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[3] (b) at minimum, 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;[3] and (c) it contains no original research. It is broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[4] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). It is neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. It is stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5] It is illustrated, if possible, by images:[6] (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.[7]	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 {{B-Class}}	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria: More detailed 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, including a lead section and all appropriate sections of content. It contains 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, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams, where appropriate. It should have an infobox where relevant and useful. Images are not required, although illustrated articles are encouraged. 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.	No reader should be 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.	Tuberous sclerosis
C {{C-Class}}	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 trivia. 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.	Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008)
Start {{Start-Class}}	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 it 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.	PANDAS
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	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 can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	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
List {{List-Class}}	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list.	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
Template {{Template-Class}}	Is any type of template. The most common types of template used in the WikiProject are infoboxes and navboxes.	Serves different purposes depending upon the type of template. Infoboxes go at the upper right of a page and are a way of providing easy access to important pieces of introductory infomation about the subject. Navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page, and are for the purpose of uniting a group of related articles into an easily accessible format for inclusion on every page listed in the navbox.	Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.	Template:Infobox Disease
Disambig {{Dab-Class}}	Is any disambiguation page.	Serves to distinguish article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic.	Pay particular attention to the proper naming of disambiguation articles, they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title.	Doctor
Category {{Cat-Class}}	Is any category.			Category:Medicine
NA {{NA-Class}}	Is not an article, and fits no other classification.	Probably not useful to any casual reader, these are typically only WikiProject pages or a Portal.	Look out for mis-classified articles. Currently many NA-class articles need to be re-classified.	Portal:Medicine

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

Requesting an assessment or re-assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article please feel free to list it below. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, contact Project members or enlist it to Peer review instead.

Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM

• Acoustic reflex - I added the entire section on the Vocalization-Induced Stapedius Reflex. The phenomenon of the vocalization-induced reflex (an ACTIVE, ever-present effect with important practical and hearing health implications) is eminently more important than the PASSIVE reflex that occurs only when loud sounds are presented.199.196.144.17 (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  • N Not done Needs someone with a background in audiology to assess its completeness for possible upgrade to B class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Rhinoscleroma - provided content and references. Ought to be upgraded from stub class. User: Cabinet of Art and Medicine July 5, 2008.
  • Y Done Upgraded to C class. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Piebaldism - I think I've done the majority of recent contributions to this. It doesn't have an importance assessment rating and it seems to me it should be Low priority. Would welcome an assessment (and hope I've done this correctly). --DI Ramekin (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Y Done I have agreed with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Diabetes mellitus type 1 - I have not changed the article yet, but it seems to me to be in disarray with much stuff that does not belong in the article. I would like to see it reorganized more in accord with pages like coeliac disease. This is a pretty important page an it deserves a good peer-review to get the process going.PB666 ^yap 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
  • N Not done For a formal peer review process, please see WP:PR. To get informal comments from knowledgeable people, let me suggest leaving a note at WT:MED. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• Dracunculiasis - Got an expansion, was previously at B-Class. Any suggestions to improve it further, including if you feel it's deserving of a more formal peer review, are very welcome. - Liontamer (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Worklist

The logs in this section are generated automatically ; please don't add entries to them by hand.

Articles are arranged by quality, FA class at the top and un-assessed class towards the bottom.

Contact with WP Medicine

• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/1 (401 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/2 (403 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/3 (411 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/4 (419 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/5 (466 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/6 (408 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/7 (409 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/8 (407 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/9 (411 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/10 (403 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/11 (401 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/12 (403 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/13 (413 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/14 (407 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/15 (409 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/16 (405 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/17 (417 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/18 (428 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/19 (406 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/20 (407 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/21 (404 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/22 (407 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/23 (405 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/24 (404 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/25 (417 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/26 (409 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/27 (424 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/28 (423 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/29 (409 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/30 (406 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/31 (397 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/32 (326 articles)
• Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Medicine articles by quality/33 (411 articles)

See also: assessed article categories.								Last update: July 15, 2008

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 16 July 2008, at 05:15.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.