| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Welcome to theassessment department of WikiProject Pharmacology! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to pharmacology and drug-related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with theWP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the{{WikiProject Pharmacology}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories class and importance.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
An article's quality assessment is recorded using the|class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the{{WikiProject Pharmacology}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (seeWikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
| FA | (forfeatured articlesonly; adds them to theFA-Class pharmacology articles category) |  FA | |
|---|---|---|---|
| FL | (forfeatured listsonly; adds them to theFL-Class pharmacology articles category) | FL | |
| A | (for articles that passed a formalpeer reviewonly; adds them to theA-Class pharmacology articles category) |  A | |
| GA | (forgood articlesonly; adds them to theGA-Class pharmacology articles category) |  GA | |
| B | (for articles that satisfy all of theB-Class criteria; adds them to theB-Class pharmacology articles category) | B | |
| C | (for substantial articles; adds them to theC-Class pharmacology articles category) | C | |
| Start | (for developing articles; adds them to theStart-Class pharmacology articles category) | Start | |
| Stub | (for basic articles; adds them to theStub-Class pharmacology articles category) | Stub | |
| List | (forstand-alone lists; adds them to theList-Class pharmacology articles category) | List | |
| NA | (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to theNA-Class pharmacology pages category) | NA | |
| ??? | (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in theUnassessed pharmacology articles category) | ??? |
For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:
| Category | (forcategories; adds them to theCategory-Class pharmacology pages category) | Category | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Draft | (fordrafts; adds them to theDraft-Class pharmacology pages category) | Draft | |
| File | (forfiles andtimed text; adds them to theFile-Class pharmacology pages category) | File | |
| Portal | (forportal pages; adds them to thePortal-Class pharmacology pages category) | Portal | |
| Project | (forproject pages; adds them to theProject-Class pharmacology pages category) | Project | |
| Template | (fortemplates andmodules; adds them to theTemplate-Class pharmacology pages category) | Template |
The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:
| Disambig | (fordisambiguation pages; adds them to theDisambig-Class pharmacology pages category) | Disambig | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Redirect | (forredirect pages; adds them to theRedirect-Class pharmacology pages category) | Redirect |
Please note thatFA-Class andGA-Class article assessments are not assigned automatically through this system. Instead, an article must be reviewed first atWP:FAC orWP:GAC. A-Class assessments are not currently used by WikiProject Pharmacology.
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA | The article has attainedfeatured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured article criteria: Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting thepolicies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
| Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | Linezolid (as of September 2009) |
| FL | The article has attainedfeatured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured list criteria:
| Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. | No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | List of cutaneous conditions (as of June 2010) |
| A | The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets theA-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described inWikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as afeatured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g.WikiProject Military history). | Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving.WP:Peer review may help. | (not used by this WikiProject) |
| GA | The article meetsall of thegood article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers fromWP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria Agood article is:
| Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existingfeatured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Alprazolam (as of March 2009) |
| B | The article meetsall of theB-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reachgood article standards. More detailed criteria
| Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. | A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with theManual of Style and relatedstyle guidelines. | Chloramphenicol (as of July 2010) |
| C | The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantialcleanup. More detailed criteria The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow. | Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solvecleanup problems. | Clorazepate (as of July 2010) |
| Start | An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
| Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. | Providing references toreliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. | Semagacestat (as of April 2010) |
| Stub | A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. | Denaverine (as of July 2010) |
| List | Meets the criteria of astand-alone list orset index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. | There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. | Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. | ATC code L04 (as of July 2010) |
An article's importance assessment is generated from theimportance parameter in the{{WikiProject Pharmacology}} project banner on its talk page:
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
| Label | Criteria | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Top | This is the highest importance. Articles rated as top-importance are generally major classes of drugs, or a major concept of pharmacology. Interestingly enough, there are no actual individual drug articles assessed at this level. | Anti-inflammatory,Beta blocker,Clinical trial,Pharmacogenomics |
| High | Articles assessed as high-importance generally include major drugs, like a prototype drug for a class, the first drug discovered in a class, or a drug that has received major media coverage. | Penicillin,Caffeine,LSD,Viagra |
| Mid | Drugs which are commonly prescribed and/or used but not the major drug in its class, are assessed at mid-importance. Examples includeDaunorubicin (similar toDoxorubicin, which is assessed high, but with over 2,000 known DOX analogs, we're not putting all of them at high-importance ;-). | Kanamycin,Tetracaine |
| Low | Drugs assessed at low-importance is pretty much everything else. Not very well known, primarily research compounds that are not on the market but might be used in the laboratory for studies, etc,... | PA 824,5-Methoxytryptamine |
If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. Please note that, if you would like an article assessed forFA orGA status, that is must be nominated atWP:FAC orWP:GAC, respectively.
Requested assessments
Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk)07:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]The article cites the majority of the biased statements to a selection of outdated primary research as well as case reports. Should be pruned to recent review articles and teaching texts according toWP:MEDRS. Remove first everything cited to case reports and primary research, in particular medical claims based onin vitro results with rat cells, cancer cells etc.Virtually everything has once been observed, investigated and contradicted in primary research. Virtually everything has been once reported in a case report of some patient.70.137.146.59 (talk)01:17, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]