Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Higher ratings require more formal processes and consensus. The following system is used to assess the quality of a Wikipedia article. The system is based on a letter scheme that reflects principally how factually complete the article is, though language quality and layout are also factors. The quality assessments are mainly performed by ...
An important tool for evaluating a Wikipedia article is to look at its quality rating. Wikipedia articles are constantly being improved, and all at different rates. Some rival the best encyclopedias; others are out of date or incomplete. Volunteers will review articles and leave a rating on the Talk page.
When evaluating articles about dishes, make sure to search for any listed synonyms, likely misspellings, or non-English names to verify that we don't already have an article about the subject. Similarly, the article may have been created at a title that is not actually the most common name used by reliable sources, in which case it should be ...
Wikipedia. : Evaluating sources. This essay examines how to evaluate sources within the context of Wikipedia's content policies. Part of evaluating a source is deciding whether it is a primary, secondary, or tertiary source. For the policy on sourcing issues, see this section of Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability.
First and foremost, the page history tells you something about who has worked on the page, and allows you to examine the successive versions of the article and the differences between them. Usually by looking through the edit history, you can quickly tell who has made substantive contributions to the article. If an edit was made by a registered ...
Overview. Source reliability falls on a spectrum: No source is 'always reliable' or 'always unreliable' for everything. However, some sources provide stronger or weaker support for a given statement. Editors must use their judgment to draw the line between usable and inappropriate sources for each statement.
The scope of this essay is to evaluate Wikipedia's success or failure as an encyclopedia, using the standard accepted criteria for all encyclopedias: overall size, organization and navigation, breadth of coverage, depth of coverage, timeliness, readability, biases, and reliability. [1][2][3] Other encyclopedic criteria peculiar to Wikipedia may ...
Examples of good feedback. A good article evaluation can take a number of forms. The most essential things are to clearly identify the biggest shortcomings, and provide specific guidance on how the article can be improved. Peer review of this article about a famous painting.