Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Assessment/Jyrejoice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jyrejoice's PPI Assessment Page

[edit]

Jyrejoice is classified as a Wikipedia expert.

Assessment 1, part 1

[edit]

The purpose of this evaluation in not to gauge variability in article quality, but to look at the metric itself. How consistent is this assessment tool? and Is there a difference in scores between subject area expert assessment and Wikipedian article assessment?

  • Comprehensiveness - 4/10(Introduction to the Act needs a little more info)
  • Sourcing - 1/6( Sources are limited)
  • Neutrality -1/3(More critical views are required)
  • Readability -2/3 ( Content to be re-structured)
  • Illustrations - 1/2
  • Formatting - 1/2
  • Total - 10/26
  • Comprehensiveness - 3/10( More information is to be retrieved and expanded to the article
  • Sourcing - 0/6( There are no references to external links to be verified)
  • Neutrality - 1/3
  • Readability - 2/3 (There are some grammatical mistakes to be corrected. eg: Law's language is not a suitable term)
  • Illustrations - 0/2
  • Formatting - 1/2
  • Total - 7/26

James Q Wilson (1 July 2010)

[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness -3/10
  • Sourcing -1/6(More sources to be added)
  • Neutrality - 1/3
  • Readability - 2/3
  • Illustrations -0/2( No illustrations)
  • Formatting -2/2(Structure is good)
  • Total - 9/26
  • Comprehensiveness - 3/10( There is not much introduction to the Topic Content)
  • Sourcing - 4/6 (Some of the content in the end has no sources to verify)
  • Neutrality - 0/3( There is no reference to any positive results of the Legislation laws)
  • Readability - 1/3( There is no flow in general for the content. Info is just loosely laid out)
  • Illustrations - 1/2
  • Formatting - 0/2
  • Total - 9/26
  • Comprehensiveness - 7/10( Latest Developments of Restrictions to Patients not mentioned)
  • Sourcing - 4/6( External References are used more than norms)
  • Neutrality - 3/3
  • Readability - 3/3
  • Illustrations - 3/3
  • Formatting - 2/2
  • Total - 22/26
  • Comprehensiveness -4/10
  • Sourcing - 4/6
  • Neutrality -1/3
  • Readability -1/3(Content can be divided into different sections)
  • Illustrations - 0/2
  • Formatting - 1/2
  • Total - 11/26
  • Comprehensiveness -7/10
  • Sourcing -4/6
  • Neutrality - 1/3(Not enough content on any shortfalls of the program)
  • Readability - 2/3
  • Illustrations -2/2
  • Formatting -1/2( Restructuring into different headings will help)
  • Total -17/26
  • Comprehensiveness -7/10(well detailed comparing different countries, but need to develop more on the civilian feedback)
  • Sourcing - 4/6
  • Neutrality - 1/3
  • Readability 2/3(Article is quite long and the comparison if tabular or graphical will be more easy to comprehend)
  • Illustrations - 1/2(Requires more charts and graphs to illustrate the comparisons)
  • Formatting - 1/2 ( To be restructured to avoid long pages)
  • Total -16/26

Assessment 1, Part 2

[edit]

Assessment request 2, please use article version from 1 October 2010. There are a couple of rereviews, hopefully those will go fast for you. This set will tie up the first assessment, which tests the quantitative metric and compares Wikipedian assessment to expert assessment. Sorry the article titles don't link to the correct article version, I will do this in the future.

[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness -1/10
  • Sourcing - 0/6
  • Neutrality - 0/3
  • Readability - 0/3
  • Illustrations - 0/2
  • Formatting - 0/2
  • Total - 1/26
[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness -1/10
  • Sourcing -1/6
  • Neutrality -0/3
  • Readability - 0/3
  • Illustrations -0/2
  • Formatting -0/2
  • Total -2/26
[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total
[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total
[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total
[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total
[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total
[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total
[edit]
  • Comprehensiveness
  • Sourcing
  • Neutrality
  • Readability
  • Illustrations
  • Formatting
  • Total