|
This assignment is worth 50% of the final score. Out of that, you get 25% for finishing things on time, and 25% by getting the paper close to a B-class status. Your 0-50% is then weighted by your activity, assessed both by the instructor and your colleagues.
You get 25% of the final score (half of the points for this assignment) simply by doing tasks described in the "stages and deadlines" above on time.
You get the other 25% of the final score (half of the points for this assignment) by making edits to the two articles (one English and one Korean) that your group selected.
The final grade will be based on a quality classes for an article. What we are aiming is is the B-class (the GA-class will earn you double points).
| Article's quality class |
Description |
Course credit points earned
|
| stub class
|
The article is a stub: it 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, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.
|
5 (=D grade)
|
| start class
|
The article has a usable amount of good content but 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.
|
10 (=C grade)
|
| C-class
|
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 original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.
|
15 (=B grade)
|
| B-class
|
The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. The article meets the six B-Class criteria:
- The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as
{{cite web}} is optional.
- 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. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
- The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
- The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
|
25 (=A grade)
|
| Good Article class
|
The article surpasses the B-Class criteria. The article meets the good article criteria
|
50 (=even more than A+ grade)
|
The grade for this assignment is further modified as follows:
- you can get up to 25% unweighted score points by finishing the five 5% worth stages described above on time.
- so, the 25% from finishing the five stages on time and 25% from getting the B-class potentially earns the group the full unweighted 50% score for this assignment, HOWEVER
- the 50% will then be weighted based on individual students participation, incorporating the number and quality of that students edits to Wikipedia, and how each other member of that student group valued his or her input and contribution. The weight is calculated as follows: 75% is based on my impression of your work, 25% on the assessments of your colleagues.
What this means is that if a group had members who worked hard throughout the term (logged in regularly, discussed the article development with other group members and other interested Wikipedia editors on article's discussion page, and so on), and members who did very little worked (logged in rarely, did not participate in discussions, and so on), their end grades for this assignment will be different. For example, if the end unweighted grade was 40%, members who did not contribute much to the group project may see their grade be much lower - 30%, 20% or in case they did almost no work, close to 0% (in other words, students who join the group and don't contribute to the group project should not expect to get a good grade from this assignment - remember: I can see how hard you are working).
Example: you get 40% unweighted score. I and your colleagues rate your activity as 4 out of 5, so 80% of 100%. Your score of 40% is multiplied by 80% yielding the final grade of 32%.
To avoid getting your grade weighted down, read the tips above, and in particular, follow those simple steps:
- log in and make edits to the article regularly, preferably several times a week
- discuss the article with other group members on article's discussion page, where the instructor can see that you are actively engaged in planning and developing the article
It is therefore NOT recommended that some group members specialize in tasks such as library research or off-wiki writing, which the instructor cannot verify.
Here is a checklist for article quality. If your article follows those guidelines, even if the the official Wikipedia reviewer fails to pass it as a Good Article, you may get your unweighted 25%:
- Paper is on one of the subject that was approved by the instructor
- Paper includes intro summary (lead in the Wikipedia terminology), at least 3 body paragraphs per group member, conclusion, and bibliography
- There are no grammatical/spelling errors throughout the paper (that does include absence of spurious capitalization, like Sociology instead of sociology and so on)
- Introduction summarizes the subject properly and does not include unique information not present in the main body of the article
- Conclusion sums up the paper without ending abruptly
- Paper is structured logically, and there are no weird gaps (Note: "weird gaps" occur for example when you chose to write about a historical trend, but your group "forgets" to research few centuries in the middle; or when you are presenting an overview by country, but decide that few random countries are enough, because you use an arbitrary "two countries per group" member rule instead of thinking which countries are important to cover for the subject discussed)
- Sources used are reliable
- In-paper citations are present and used correctly according to Wikipedia format see Wikipedia:Citing sources
- In-paper citations are done in a consistent format, and provide all the necessary information (in brief: author's name, publication title, publisher information, page number if source has pages, URL if source is online, see ASA style for details)
- Body of the paper explores the chosen subject in adequate detail. (Note: “adequate detail” means I shouldn’t be able to do a quick literature search and find information not included in the paper. I want you to search current and past literature, books, newspapers, websites, etc. and summarize all the information you find into an easy-to-read and understand paper. If you are missing major bits of information, or have included incorrect information without citations to back up your findings, you will lose major points here).
- Paper should conform to Wikipedia writing standards (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research)
With regards to getting the full activity score:
- Your group members will expect you to be easily reachable to discuss the paper, and come to their meetings
- Your group members will expect you to do "your share" of the work
- I will grade your activity based on two primary factors:
- Whether you contributed to your paper on a regular basis (every few days) or not
- Whether you were active on the article's talk page. This means that I see that attempted to address and fix any and all comments/suggestions given by me, your colleagues, the reviewer and the Wikipedia community. If the change was not made, adequate explanation was given (which did not include "this is for an research assignment, so leave us alone)
How to fail the assignment:
- plagiarism, or extensive quotations
- letting others do all the work and hoping you can still get some points
- missing deadlines
- logging in an editing only at the very end of the course, where you discover you are not sure how to edit Wikipedia, and that your contribution does not really fit the articles your other members were working on
- not participating in the talk page discussions
In addition to working on an article as a group project, all students are required to regularly edit Wikipedia, making 5 edits to English and 5 edits to Korean Wikipedia each week on articles different from their group article. Failing to make the required amount of edits in a week will result in a penalty of -1 point, on the bright side doing double the requirement (10 and 10) will grant you an extra credit point!
|
