enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Wikipedia:Content assessment - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_assessment

    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 ...

  3. Wikipedia : WikiProject WikiFundi Content/Help:Evaluating ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject...

    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 Some rival the best encyclopedias; others are out of date or incomplete.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.

  4. Wikipedia:Quick guide to reviewing new articles - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quick_guide_to...

    WP:QG. WP:QGRNA. This page contains short guides and advice for reviewing various types of articles as part of new pages patrol. Where the main instructions page focuses on a mechanical view of how to process an article, this page summarizes key things to look out for on specific types of articles, as well as resources and likely outcomes.

  5. Wikipedia:Reliable sources - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

    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.

  6. Help:How to read an article history - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:How_to_read_an...

    Each edit in the article history will contain two links ((cur) and (prev)), the edit date, the editor, and sometimes an edit summary. Sometimes, there will also be an m to designate that a particular edit was only minor. Clicking (cur) will compare the version in question with the current version, while clicking (prev) will compare that version ...

  7. Systematic review - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review

    A systematic review is a scholarly synthesis of the evidence on a clearly presented topic using critical methods to identify, define and assess research on the topic. [1] A systematic review extracts and interprets data from published studies on the topic (in the scientific literature), then analyzes, describes, critically appraises and summarizes interpretations into a refined evidence-based ...

  8. Template : Dashboard.wikiedu.org evaluate article/guide

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Dashboard.wikiedu...

    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.

  9. CRAAP test - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRAAP_test

    The CRAAP test is a test to check the objective reliability of information sources across academic disciplines. CRAAP is an acronym for Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, and Purpose. [1] Due to a vast number of sources existing online, it can be difficult to tell whether these sources are trustworthy to use as tools for research.