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 Some rival the best encyclopedias; others are out of date or incomplete.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.
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.
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 ...
For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves ( see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point ...
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.
Generally, the article appears to dislike secondary sources, which is odd and counter to the emphasis in the original PSTS. The original idea of expanding PSTS had merit, but the grand title awarded to this page has caused the scope to become unclear. I can't see how such a long and problematic piece of text can become official any time soon.