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

WikiProject Medicine
Navigation
Project page	talk
Manual of Style	talk
Departments
→ Assessment	talk
→ FA review	talk
→ Featured topics proj.	talk
Task forces	talk
→ Emergency and EMS	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

Contents 1 Significant issues ?? 2 Assessment aids 3 MEDMOS compliance wording is wrong 4 MANY incorrect assessments 5 A/GA difference unclear - please clarify 6 New articles for assessment 7 Installing Outriggr's script 8 Priority 9 Short article, not stub -- please create a new category 10 should a separate department be made just for tagging? 11 C-Class category 12 New section: About the scope 13 Assessment article examples 14 Your views

Significant issues ??

"An A-Class Article is very well-written, nearly comprehensive and approaching excellence, but may still have significant issues."  ???? I hope not! And that's at odds with the Version 1.0 description of A class, which should be even more important for medical articles.

GA, A, and FA-class should all conform to WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. thanks for pointing it out.--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Assessment aids

Would it be difficult to sort pages by time to last edit? Pages not edited for years may need deletion or merging elsewhere. Pages edited recently may need reassessment. --Una Smith 00:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

MEDMOS compliance wording is wrong

All articles under the 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 confirm to style guideline. This wording is wrong. There is nothing at WP:WIAGA that obligates a GA to comply with MEDMOS; we need to explicitly state that articles should comply for GA and must comply for A-class. (We don't impose GA requirements, but we can impose A-class requirements for the Project.) On the other hand, FAs must comply with Project guidelines, per WP:WIAFA; this is already a requirement of WIAFA. Also, confirm is the wrong word, should be conform or follow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:WIAGA wording for this is: Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level. I think there is some room for this kind of wording and there is enough difference between unlikely and complete negativity to put this emphasis.--Countincr ^{( T@lk )} 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

MANY incorrect assessments

I just noticed that the chart shows a large jump in Medical good articles, even though there have been no recent medical articles at WP:GAC. Several editors are assessing articles as GA that have not been through WP:GAC. Now, every article assessed as GA needs to be double-checked, as many of them are wrong. I know the A-class and FA-class are still correct, as those numbers were 4 and 32 before this thing was put in place, but several GA assessments are wrong and need to be located and re-assessed back to B-class. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I found and reversed five of them, but I don't know if that's everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A/GA difference unclear - please clarify

Dear all,

After trying to understand the Project Medicine rating scheme, I'm left with doubts about the separation of the A and GA categories. The other categories are reasonably ordered by quality: stub < start < b < a/ga?? < fa. Could you explain the difference between GA (good article) and A class? Is A better than GA? Does A also require a formal peer review process?

Thanks and best regards, Jakob Suckale 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer is, A class is better than GA. At present we do not have review group for A class assessment (some projects like WP:WPBIO do). It is done individually. FACs can be assessed for A class.--Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

New articles for assessment

By generating list from category pages, so far I have tagged project template into 2000+ articles . My guess is there are 10000+ medicine related articles in en.wiki. These articles need to be assessed to have a clearer picture of this project and in future might help setting up goals. Outrigg's script might save time. However read instructions carefully before changing anything in your monobook. Change TemplateA to WPMED in the script. Unassessed articles can be found here(quality) and here(priority). There is a delay in updating bot generated assessment logs --Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 20:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Installing Outriggr's script

This script was developed by Outriggr and steps shown here are for installing it for wikiproject medicine only and is not recommended for new users as it involves changing your monobook. Any change or edit you make is your own responsibility. please visit the script page to know how it works.

1. For this script to work your skin preference should be monobook.js (it is the default setting). You can change to monobook by going to preference.
2. Go to your monobook
3. Copy and paste the five lines below into monobook.js.

// [[User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js]] <nowiki>
importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); 
assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WPMED|class=|importance=}}", "{{TemplateB|class=|importance=}}", "{{TemplateC|class=|importance=}}"];
assessmentDefaultProject = "WPMED";
// </nowiki>

1. Save the edit to monobook.js, then refresh your browser as the page directions indicate
2. If you wish to delete the tool, just remove the pasted script and refresh the browser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Countincr (talk • contribs) 14:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• User options

For all options, spelling and CaSe are important.

You can set the default importance. To set it to "mid" add this to monobook:

assessmentDefaultPriority = "Mid";  //

Assessment will be displayed as "minor" by default. To make them "not minor", add the following to your monobook.js:

assessmentMarkAsMinor = false;

The script will maintain all watchlist settings, and if you have the Wikipedia Preference "Add pages I edit to my watchlist" turned on, by default all assessed articles will be added to your watchlist. To prevent this (i.e. to maintain the watchlist status of only pages you already have watchlisted), add the following to your monobook.js:

assessmentOverrideWatchPref = true;

• So far it worked fine for me. Please enlist your name at script page and if you discover any bug let Outriggr know.--Countincr ^{( t@lk )} 21:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Priority

I've drafted a revised importance scale for the WPMED project. Since practically every medical condition and treatment has "international notability," the usual (geography-oriented) rules seem inadequate. Please take a look at this draft and let me know what you think. (Comments here, please, so everyone can easily be involved in the discussion). Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Without a doubt. Much better. JFW | T@lk 07:51, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Short article, not stub -- please create a new category

Some articles are voluntarily kept short, because they cover a topic closely related to a much larger article. For example, tumor is kept short to reduce duplication with the huge, encyclopedic cancer article.

Tumor is not a stub, it is (and will remain) a short article. Please create a new category. Emmanuelm (talk) 12:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your problem. Tumor has never been classified as a stub by this project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, you are right: Tumor is classified as a "start", which is also wrong. I was thinking of neoplasm, classified a "stub" until I changed it today. I was avoiding the neoplasm article because, as you know well, we disagree on this "voluntarily kept short" business.

I was hoping to find support for my idea. Finding you running the show here too, I guess I'll look elsewhere. Emmanuelm (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You might consider taking your proposal to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. I think they're the people who own the "quality" scheme. (The only thing WPMED adds is the column of examples on the far right side of the table.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is theoretically possible for a short article to become B-class, GA or even FA. In practice, short articles have a habit of remaining start class. Anything that is not a stub is not a stub; Wikipedia does not allow for further size distinctions. JFW | T@lk 22:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

should a separate department be made just for tagging?

there are thousands of articles that are yet to be tagged. While they mainly lie in other workgroups, the medicine workgroup should also be tagged if they have any clinical relevance. Just open any medical school textbook and start entering vocabulary words and then adding the tagging. That task alone would be huge, should it be its own department? Tkjazzer (talk) 04:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Tagging is only a means to an end. The contributors presently involved in tagging are already doing so. At the moment we don't need added levels of organisation, we need to assist users working on articles who need editoral assistance. JFW | T@lk 05:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound the least bit like a therapist, can you tell me what a "department" means to you in this context? Assessment already has its own page and its own talk page. What else are you looking for? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

C-Class category

We now have C-Class articles, but the category doesn't exist. Can someone adept at such things fix it for me? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The category has been created. --Scott Alter 22:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we really helped by even more depths to which an article can sink? JFW | T@lk 06:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but we might be helped by more heights to which a stub can rise. I'd like some day to re-assess all of the Start-class articles, which are better described at the moment as "not obviously B-class" articles. The assessments I've done in the last six or eight months have been very approximate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

New section: About the scope

I've added a new section, partly as a handy place to list links to related projects' banners. This is also an effort to document the current "ideal" practice, although I'm open to changing the practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment article examples

The examples of articles with progress assessments uses current rather than dated articles. I believe the rating on some should probably have been upgraded because of updates, if somebody good at rating could put in oldid as in the Exeter Cathedral example for the C rating it would remove doubt thanks. Dmcq (talk) 12:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Your views

I can't make up my mind about the two strength-related articles in Category:Unassessed-Class medicine articles. I'd be happy to have anyone else make a decision about their importance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 24 July 2008, at 04:49.

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 talk:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia_talk: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.