Template:QualityScore

From WikiIslam, the online resource on Islam
Jump to: navigation, search
Under construction icon-yellow.svg

This article or section is being renovated.

Lead = Undefined
Structure = Undefined
Content = Undefined
Language = Undefined
References = Undefined
Lead
Undefined
Structure
Undefined
Content
Undefined
Language
Undefined
References
Undefined


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:

Under construction icon-yellow.svg

This article or section is being renovated.

Lead = 3 / 4
Structure = 4 / 4
Content = 3 / 4
Language = 4 / 4
References = 2 / 4
Lead
3 / 4
Structure
4 / 4
Content
3 / 4
Language
4 / 4
References
2 / 4


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

Produces:

Under construction icon-yellow.svg

This article or section is being renovated.

Lead = 3 / 4
Structure = Undefined
Content = 3 / 4
Language = 4 / 4
References = 2 / 4
Lead
3 / 4
Structure
Undefined
Content
3 / 4
Language
4 / 4
References
2 / 4


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

Produces:

Under construction icon-yellow.svg

This article or section is being renovated.

Lead = 3 / 4
Invalid
Content = 3 / 4
Language = 4 / 4
References = 2 / 4
Lead
3 / 4
Structure
Invalid
Content
3 / 4
Language
4 / 4
References
2 / 4


Lead (introductory sentence, summary, context)
1 (objectionable) 2 (weak) 3 (acceptable) 4 (strong)
  • 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


Structure (organization, sections)
1 (objectionable) 2 (weak) 3 (acceptable) 4 (strong)
  • 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


Content (depth, balance)
1 (objectionable) 2 (weak) 3 (acceptable) 4 (strong)
  • 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


Language (tone, writing)
1 (objectionable) 2 (weak) 3 (acceptable) 4 (strong)
  • 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


References (citations, sources, completeness)
1 (objectionable) 2 (weak) 3 (acceptable) 4 (strong)
  • 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


This template allows a page to be quality scored

Template parameters

ParameterDescriptionTypeStatus
LeadLead

Enter a score from 1 to 4

Default
Example
Auto value
empty
Numbersuggested
StructureStructure

Enter a score from 1 to 4

Default
Example
Auto value
empty
Numbersuggested
ContentContent

Enter a score from 1 to 4

Default
Example
Auto value
empty
Numbersuggested
LanguageLanguage

Enter a score from 1 to 4

Default
Example
Auto value
empty
Numbersuggested
ReferencesReferences

Enter a score from 1 to 4

Default
Example
Auto value
empty
Numbersuggested