Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Research/Article quality/Priority 2

Here are the explanations of each metric category! You will want to refer to this page as you are rating articles!

When reviewing an article, please keep the following in mind:

The wiki markup should look like this:

==University, Course==
=== Article Name ===
==== [link to article Pre] ====
;Reviewer 1
Reviewer: {{User|user_id}}
Scores:
* Comprehensiveness: #
* Sourcing: #
* Neutrality: #
* Readability: #
* Formatting: #
* Illustrations: #
Total: '''#'''
Comment: (optional)

==== [link to article Post] ====
;Reviewer 1
Reviewer: {{User|user_id}}
Scores:
* Comprehensiveness: #
* Sourcing: #
* Neutrality: #
* Readability: #
* Formatting: #
* Illustrations: #
Total: '''#'''
Comment: (optional)

Only fill out: the user id section (user_id) and all score sections (#).
Do not leave comments in the score sections

Shenandoah U, History and Systems of Psych

Narcissistic personality disorder

Post

Reviewer 1

Reviewer: Pjoef (talk · contribs)

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 5
Sourcing: 3
Neutrality: 2
Readability: 1
Formatting: 1
Illustrations: 1

Total: 13
–pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer 2

Reviewer: Graeme Bartlett (talk)

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 6.2
Sourcing: 4
Neutrality: 2
Readability: 2
Formatting: 1.5
Illustrations: 0.5

Total: 16.2

Only a small addition was made here, but quality of formatting was lower than the exiting content. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer 3

Reviewer: Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 5
Sourcing: 4
Neutrality: 2
Readability: 2
Formatting: 1
Illustrations: 1

Total: 15 Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U Kentucky, Research in Personality

Bipolar disorder not otherwise specified

Pre

Reviewer 1

Reviewer: Pjoef (talk · contribs)

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 2
Sourcing: 4
Neutrality: 2
Readability: 1
Formatting: 1
Illustrations: 0

Total: 10
–pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer 2

Reviewer: Mattsenate (talk) 01:14, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 3
Sourcing: 2
Neutrality: 3
Readability: 3
Formatting: 2
Illustrations: 0

Total: 13

Reviewer 3

Reviewer: Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 3
Sourcing: 4
Neutrality: 3
Readability: 3
Formatting: 2
Illustrations: 0

Total: 15 Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post

Reviewer 1

Reviewer: Pjoef (talk · contribs)

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 4
Sourcing: 3
Neutrality: 2
Readability: 1
Formatting: 1
Illustrations: 0

Total: 11
–pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer 2

Reviewer: Mattsenate (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 4
Sourcing: 2
Neutrality: 2
Readability: 1
Formatting: 1
Illustrations: 0

Total: 10

Reviewer 3

Reviewer: Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

Comprehensiveness: 4
Sourcing:3
Neutrality: 2
Readability: 1
Formatting: 1
Illustrations: 0

Total: 11 Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (I'd really like to give this .5; 1 feels too generous, but 0 is too harsh.) about formatting Lfcampos (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]