Intensive course on research state of the art and Wikipedia for PhD students/Evaluation criteria
| Project | Events | Pilot | Syllabus | Methodology | Model |
Evaluation criteria for the Wikipedia article. The evaluation gives from 1 to 5 points to each criterion. If you have 0 you fail.
Technical evaluation
[edit]- Capacity to produce a Wikipedia article which can be published
- Compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines
- Structure and length of the article: several sessions with title and description, with a clear description of the topic
- Presence of references
- Neutrality
Extra points
- reviewing content from colleagues
- translating the article
- fixing/expanding other existing articles
- uploading many images on the subject
- creating/expanding multiple Wikidata items
| Criteria | Min-Max | Max |
|---|---|---|
| Basic criteria | ||
| Capacity to produce a Wikipedia article which can be published | 0/1 | 1 |
| Compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines | 0/1 | 1 |
| Neutrality | 0/1 | 1 |
| Standard sessions included | 0/1 | 1 |
| Respect of copyright / avoiding plagiarism | 0/1 | 1 |
| Presence of references | 0-3 | 3 |
| References based on a variety and quality of sources | 1-3 | 3 |
| Length of the article (eventually images) | 1-3 | 3 |
| Clear structure with different sessions and a clear description of the topic | 1-3 | 3 |
| Article clear and well-written | 1-3 | 3 |
| Total regular points | 20 | |
| Extra points | ||
| reviewing content from colleagues | 0-2 | 2 |
| translating the article | 1-2 | 2 |
| fixing/expanding other existing articles | 1-2 | 2 |
| uploading images about the subject | 1-2 | 2 |
| creating/expanding multiple Wikidata items | 1-2 | 2 |
| Total extra points | 10 | |
| Total points | 30 | |
| Minimum | Points | Grade |
|---|---|---|
| Minimum | 10 (no 0) | Sufficient |
| 11 | Sufficient | |
| 12 | Good | |
| 13 | Good | |
| 14 | Good | |
| 15 | Very good | |
| 16 | Very good | |
| 17 | Very good | |
| 18 (no 1) | Excellent | |
| 19 | Excellent | |
| Maximum without extra points | 20 | Excellent |
| Maximum with extra points | 30 | Excellent |
To be sufficient the evaluation can not include 0. To be excellent you can not have 1 in the basic criteria.
Content review
[edit]- References. Do the references include monographies and scientific articles which are relevant and consolidated sources? Please note that the reviewer can not recommend his/her publications.
- Neutrality. Does the article provide an overview of the topic, by including the major perspectives?
- Mistakes or important omissions. Does the article present mistakes? Please indicate how the article should be corrected.
- Strengths of the article. Please provide a feedback about the positive aspects of the article.
- Future improvements. Please provide suggestions on how to improve the article.