- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Philosophy WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments?
- Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
- What if I don't agree with a rating?
- You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
- Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
[edit] Quality assessments
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Philosophy}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{Philosophy|class=???}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:
For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:
The class parameter should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Philosophy articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.
[edit] Quality scale
[edit] Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{Philosophy}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Philosophy| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
[edit] Importance scale
| Label |
Criteria |
Reader's experience |
Editor's experience |
Example |
| Top |
The article is one of the core topics about philosophy. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Philosophy article. |
A reader who is not involved in the philosophy field will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. |
Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. |
Philosophy |
| High |
The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding philosophy. |
| Mid |
The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of philosophy. |
Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. |
Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand philosophy. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in the history of philosophy will be rated in this level. |
Absurdism |
| Low |
The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of philosophy. |
Few readers outside the philosophy field or that are not philosophy students may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. |
Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of philosophy, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of philosophy. |
Ogyū Sorai |
[edit] Requesting an assessment
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.
- Surfism is a philosophy that views existence in terms that correspond to surfing. Questionable notability and unassessed. Maradja (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- Naïve realism has recently received criticism that it has too many quotes and is therefore not appropriate in an encyclopaedia. In defence, it was originally compiled as a sampling of relevant comments made on the subject, which where formed into a coherent and informative discussion. It would be good if someone could re-assess the article and provide some comment regarding the recent criticisms (see the talk page). Thanks :) Anandavala (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- Can I suggest someone look at the Francis Bacon article. It's currently rated as "C" for this group, but I'm of the view that it deserves a higher rating as significant improvements have been made. Contaldo80 (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the article on Paolo Virno is start class but do not agree with its assessment as of low IMPORTANCE. Virno is an important figure in the philosophy of political action and communication, as well as of the positioning of types of labor and collectivity in the present world, and deserves better. The article has some strange wording and is inadequately sourced, but the 'low importance' assessment seems to be independent of that. ( Also, what's there needs some copy editing.) Actio (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Might someone please look at the Arius article again? It was rather poorly written before, and had a "rewrite" tag on it when I found it and set about rewriting and reworking it from top to bottom. I'd be interested in seeing where it is now, compared to where it was before, together with any suggestions for improvement. I definitely think it's better than "Start" class, now. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thomism has been almost completely re-written. Given the immense importance of Aquinas in the history of philosophy, I would also advocate its importance scale be moved up to "high". -- LightSpectra (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Rights has received a lot of edits over the past year or so that certainly elevate it above stub class. I'd tentatively rated it C-class right now but I'd like an outside opinion. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
