Template:QualityScore

A checked version of this page, approved on 27 November 2020, was based on this revision.

All articles on the wiki are required to have a score reflecting its quality in each category defined in the rubric on this page. If you edit a page or encounter a page that has been edited and decide that the page's scores need to be updated, be sure to update the score. The same holds for if you decide that a page has been improperly scored in any category.

Scoring Rubric

1 (objectionable)	2 (weak)	3 (acceptable)	4 (strong)
Lead (introductory sentence, summary, context)
No lead section or just a single, unhelpful sentence Summary missing or lacks most key ideas Doesn’t provide enough information to determine what the article is about	Lacks definitional, introductory sentence Summary lacks some key ideas Includes excessive, irrelevant or background information	Introductory sentence exists but is weak Summary lacks a few key points Includes some irrelevant information	Strong, definitional introductory sentence Comprehensive summary (who, where, when, why) Comprises of strictly relevant information

1 (objectionable)	2 (weak)	3 (acceptable)	4 (strong)
Structure (organization, sections)
No sections; blatantly overlaps with other pages Explains no key terms Lacks “relevant quotations” section Lacks “Apologetic Arguments (and Rebuttals)” section Includes “conclusion” Lacks mention of associated pages or “see also:” section	Some relevant sections included; partially overlaps with other pages Explains some key terms Lacks some key sections Poor flow between sections; sections are poorly ordered Includes “conclusion” Scant mention of associated pages and weak “see also:” section	Most relevant sections included; negligible overlap with other pages Explains most key terms Lacks few key sections Some flow between sections; one or two sections out of place No “conclusion” Good mention of associated pages and strong “see also:” sectio	All relevant sections included; no overlap with other pages Explains all key terms Lacks no key sections Good flow between sections; sections are well-ordered No “conclusion” Comprehensive mention of associated pages and thorough “see also:” section

1 (objectionable)	2 (weak)	3 (acceptable)	4 (strong)
Content (depth, balance)
Totally disengaged with subject matter Presents fringe view as if it were mainstream	Misses key portions of the topic, but is self-aware Presents mainstream view while actively marginalizing minority views	Covers most key portions of the topic, but admits missing content Presents mainstream narrative view while (perhaps admittedly) ignoring minority views	Comprehensive coverage of all relevant topic areas Presents mainstream and minority views deservingly and without favor

1 (objectionable)	2 (weak)	3 (acceptable)	4 (strong)
Language (tone, writing)
Argumentative rather than informative; openly seeks to “debunk” English is poorly constructed; partially unintelligible; speaks categorically and with absolutes Chatty or angry in tone; uses first person	Partially informative and partially argumentative; openly attempts to sway reader English contains many errors; unpolished language; long winded or lacking nuance Blatantly persuasive in tone	Mostly informative but includes argumentative portions; slights counter narrative English is fairly produced with some typos; mostly clear; admits nuance in subject matter Mostly appropriate tone, choppy in places	Strictly informative; allows reader to arrive at their own conclusion Strong english without typos; clear and to-the-point; handles nuance academically Neutral tone appropriate for encyclopedia audience

1 (objectionable)	2 (weak)	3 (acceptable)	4 (strong)
References (citations, sources, completeness)
Any number of false claims; very few or no sources References unreliable internet sources Citations are incorrectly formatted; sources are impossible to track down; broken links	No false claims; a few unsourced paragraphs or sections Depends heavily on biased, low-quality sources Most citations are correctly formatted; sources are difficult to track down; broken links	No false claims; some less important content has unclear sourcing Mostly uses reliable sources, but includes some low-quality sources Few mistakes in citations; sources can be easily tracked down; all links clickable to source	No false claims; all sources are clear Most sources are the best sources available on the topic; includes multiple sources when useful All citations properly formatted and trackable; direct links included when possible; all links clickable to source

Template Usage

Each parameter value must be in the range 1-4. If an invalid parameter is used, it will display as "Invalid". If a parameter is left empty, it will display as "Undefined".

Example 1: {{QualityScore|Lead=3|Structure=4|Content=3|Language=4|References=2}}

Produces:

Example 2: {{QualityScore|Lead=3|Content=3|Language=4|References=2}}

Produces:

Example 3: {{QualityScore|Lead=3|Structure=5|Content=3|Language=4|References=2}}

Produces:

This template allows a page to be quality scored

Template parameters
Parameter		Description	Type	Status
Lead	`Lead`	Enter a score from 1 to 4 Default Example	Number	suggested
Structure	`Structure`	Enter a score from 1 to 4 Default Example	Number	suggested
Content	`Content`	Enter a score from 1 to 4 Default Example	Number	suggested
Language	`Language`	Enter a score from 1 to 4 Default Example	Number	suggested
References	`References`	Enter a score from 1 to 4 Default Example	Number	suggested