pjoef's PPI Assessment Page

pjoef is classified as both a public policy expert and a Wikipedia expert.

Assessment 1, part 1

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 WP(s) article assessment?

Executive Order 11478 (25 September 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 1/10 (or 10%) (it is a brief introduction to the topic [stub])
Sourcing: 1/6 (or 16.67%) (it is verifiable and cites one source [the EO 11478 itself], but it's too brief and too basic)
Neutrality: 0/3 (or 0%) (missing third-party POV)
Readability: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it is comprehensible and reasonably clear)
Illustrations: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is NOT illustrated [excluding the {{LGBT rights}} banner])
Formatting: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is NOT organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 4/26 (or 15.38%) (Stub)

WP(s) article assessment: Stub

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homeland Security Act (26 September 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 2/10 (or 20%) (it's just a bit more than a brief introduction to the topic [stub/start])
Sourcing: 0/6 (or 0%) (it doesn't cite sources [excluding the Act itself])
Neutrality: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (missing major third-party POV)
Readability: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (it's comprehensible but unclear)
Illustrations: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is NOT illustrated)
Formatting: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is NOT organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 4/26 (or 15.38%) (Stub/Start)

WP(s) article assessment: Stub (all WPs)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (26 September 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 5/10 (or 50%) (it is well-developed in some aspects but requires major expansion in others [C])
Sourcing: 3/6 (or 50%) (it is mostly well-sourced, but has some material that is not sourced)
Neutrality: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it follows the NPOV policy, with only minor exceptions)
Readability: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (its prose is NOT engaging and of a professional standard, but it is comprehensible and reasonably clear)
Illustrations: 1/2 (or 50%) (it has just one illustration of an incandescent light bulb)
Formatting: 2/2 (or 100%) (it is organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 15/26 (or 57.69%) (C)

WP(s) article assessment: Start (WP:Energy); Unassessed (WP:USPP)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug policy of the United States (26 September 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 1/10 (or 10%) (there is nothing in this article. It consists of one section only (effects of something that is not covered by this article. It really needs to be expanded. 1 out of 10 is too much [stub].)
Sourcing: 1/6 (or 16.67%) (its few contents are mostly well-sourced, but has some material that is unsourced plus some broken links.)
Neutrality: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (missing major third-party POV)
Readability: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (it's comprehensible but unclear)
Illustrations: 1/2 (or 50%) (it has just a graph captured from a slide in a UK (not US!) Govt. report, which is also tagged for both fair and free use)
Formatting: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is NOT organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 5/26 (or 19.23%) (Stub)

WP(s) article assessment: Unassessed (WP:USPP); C (all other WPs)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Government Accountability Office (26 September 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 3/10 (or 30%) (it requires major expansion [Start])
Sourcing: 2/6 (or 33.33%) (it is mostly unsourced)
Neutrality: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it follows the NPOV policy, with some exceptions)
Readability: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it is comprehensible and reasonably clear)
Illustrations: 1/2 (or 50%) (it is partially illustrated, but more images should be added)
Formatting: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is NOT organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 10/26 (or 38.46%) (Start)

WP(s) article assessment: Start (WP:BUSINESS); Unassessed (WP:USC and WP:USPP)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Plan (27 September 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 4/10 (or 40%) (it is well-developed in some aspects but requires major expansion in others [C])
Sourcing: 3/6 (or 50%) (it is mostly well-sourced, but some material remains unsourced)
Neutrality: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it follows the NPOV policy, with some exceptions)
Readability: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (its prose is NOT of a professional standard, but it is comprehensible and reasonably clear)
Illustrations: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is NOT illustrated)
Formatting: 2/2 (or 100%) (it is organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 13/26 (or 50.00%) (C)

WP(s) article assessment: Unassessed (all WPs)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment 1, part 2

All from 1 October 2010 or there about. There are a couple of rereviews, hopefully those will be fast.

Permanent residence (United States) (7 October 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 4/10 (or 40%) (it is well-developed in some aspects, but requires major expansion in others)
Sourcing: 2/6 (or 33.33%) (a significant portion of the article is well-sourced, but the majority of it is unsourced)
Neutrality: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (it mostly follows NPOV, but there are not other major viewpoints)
Readability: 2/3 (or 66.66%) (the organization of the article is not very good, but it is comprehensible and reasonably clear [1–2 or 1.6–1.8])
Illustrations: 1/2 (or 50%) (it is partially illustrated [1–2 or 1.5–1.8])
Formatting: 1/2 (or 50%) (it has modest deficiencies in format [1.3–1.5])
Total: 11/26 (or 42.31%) (C)

WP(s) article assessment: B (WP:USA), C (WP:USPP)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (7 October 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 3/10 (or 33.33%) (it is well-developed in some aspects, but it is also far from comprehensive [3–3.5])
Sourcing: 1/6 (or 16.67%) (a significant portion of the article is well-sourced, but the majority of it is unsourced [1–1.5])
Neutrality: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (it needs other major viewpoints)
Readability: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (tagged with {{Confusing}} on September 2010)
Illustrations: 1/2 (or 50%) (there is a good photo of the President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson, signing the Immigration Act of 1965 at Liberty Island, but more images should be added [1.3–1.6])
Formatting: 1/2 (or 50%) (it has modest deficiencies in format)
Total: 8/26 (or 30.77%) (Start)

WP(s) article assessment: Start (all WPs)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fly America Act (7 October 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 1/10 (or 10%) (it is a Stub)
Sourcing: 0/6 (or 0%) (Unsourced)
Neutrality: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (other major viewpoints are absent)
Readability: 1/3 (or 33.33%) (it is difficult to understand)
Illustrations: 0/2 (or 0%) (NOT illustrated)
Formatting: 0/2 (or %) (it is not organized nor formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 3/26 (or 11.54%) (Stub)

WP(s) article assessment: Start (WP:USPP)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (7 October 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 3/10 (or 30%) (it is a little more than a preliminary introduction, but with a couple of lists and a table)
Sourcing: 1/6 (or 16.67%) (only a small portion of the article is well-sourced)
Neutrality: 1/3 (or %) (it follows NPOV, but it lacks other points of view [1–1.5])
Readability: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it is comprehensible and reasonably [1.6–2])
Illustrations: 1/2 (or 50%) (there is a graph, but it needs more illustrations)
Formatting: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is not formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 8/26 (or %) (Start)

WP(s) article assessment: C (WP:USPP)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 18:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War on Drugs (8 October 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 6/10 (or 60%) (it is well-developed, but requires expansion in some of its sections; for example see: Legality [5.5–6.4])
Sourcing: 4/6 (or 66.67%) (it is well-sourced, but needs more sources)
Neutrality: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it follows NPOV, with minor exceptions [1.7–2.2])
Readability: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it is comprehensible and reasonably clear [2–2.4])
Illustrations: 2/2 (or 100%) (it is well-illustrated, but more images and appropriate captions should be added [1.6–1.7])
Formatting: 2/2 (or 100%) (well-formatted and is mostly consistent with itself and with the manual of style [1.7–1.9])
Total: 18/26 (or 60.23%) (C)

WP(s) article assessment: Unassessed (WP:USPP and WP:PDD); C (all other WPs)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Order 11478 (7 October 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 1/10 (or 10%) (it's a stub, just a brief introduction to the topic)
Sourcing: 1/6 (or 16.67%) (it cites just one source, which is the EO 11478 itself)
Neutrality: 0/3 (or 0%) (it falls significantly NPOV)
Readability: 2/3 (or 66.67%) (it is reasonably clear)
Illustrations: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is not illustrated)
Formatting: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is not organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 4/26 (or 15.38%) (Stub)

WP(s) article assessment: Stub

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drug policy of the United States (7 October 2010)

Used this version.

Comprehensiveness: 1/10 (or 10%) (it's a stub)
Sourcing: 3/6 (or 50%) (it's mostly well-sourced, but has some material that is not sourced)
Neutrality: 0/3 (or 0%) (it does not follow the NPOV policy)
Readability: 0/3 (or 0%) (it's unclear)
Illustrations: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is not illustrated)
Formatting: 0/2 (or 0%) (it is NOT organized and formatted according to Wikipedia standards)
Total: 4/26 (or 15.38%) (Stub)

WP(s) article assessment: Start (WP:USPP); C (all other WPs)

Done –pjoef (talk • contribs) 08:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]