Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment

Quality: FA | A | GA | B | C | Start | Stub | Unassessed · Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown

Template:WPM Navigation Welcome to the assessment department of the Medicine WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's medicine articles . While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP: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 {{WPMED}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Medicine articles by quality and Category:Medicine articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

All articles under medicine project should try to adhere to Manual of Style (medicine-related articles). An article is unlikely to attract a grade above B class if it does not conform to style guideline. A Featured Article is the highest possible assessment, and requires a community consensus demonstrated at Featured Article Candidates per the guidelines of What Is a Featured Article? An A-Class Article is very well-written, nearly comprehensive and approaching excellence, but may still need minor edits and adjustments.

Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated?

First, make sure that the article is actually within the scope of the project (see below). If it is, you can list it in the requesting an assessment section below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of WikiProject Medicine is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.

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.

Where can I get more comments about my article?

Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.

What if I don't agree with a rating?

Relist it as a request or contact the project.

Aren't the ratings subjective?

Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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 on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine directly.

Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article?

This project supports articles related to medicine, such as diseases, conditions, and treatments for humans. However, there are many areas of medicine that it does not support, including veterinary medicine and alternative medicine. Additionally, there are other projects that are more closely related to some articles. Here are some other projects that may be better matches for some topics:

Probably no

• People that happen to have a medical condition.
• Human anatomy: Tag with {{WikiProject Anatomy}}. Other tags may also be appropriate.
• Alternative medicine: Generally, tag with {{WikiProject Alternative Medicine}} instead of WPMED. Major articles may be supported by both projects.
• Non-human medicine and microbes that do not cause diseases in humans: Use {{WikiProject Veterinary medicine}} or {{WikiProject Plants}} instead of WPMED.
• Cell signaling and involved molecules: {{WikiProject Cell Signaling}} and/or {{WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology}}, unless there is significant medical information in the article.
• Science in general or the scientific method: Use {{WikiProject Science}} instead of WPMED unless the connection to medicine is clearly obvious to the reader.
• Sex toys and other objects that could transmit diseases, result in injuries, or otherwise have some tangential connection to medicine.
• Pharmaceutical companies: Tag all of these with {{WikiProject Pharmacology}}. (Medical device manufacturers are still within WPMED, with importance set to "Low".)

Use judgment

• Health and fitness: Tag all with {{WikiProject Health and fitness}}. Add WPMED only if the article includes a significant medical component.
• Dentistry: Tag all with {{WPDENT}}. For articles generalizable to all of medicine, also use WPMED.
• Nursing: Tag all with {{WPNURSE}}. Add WPMED for articles demonstrating its interaction with medicine.
• Physicians or other healthcare workers: {{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}. Add WPMED only if the person is notable for substantial contributions to medicine.
• Microbes and pathogens, and infectious diseases: Infectious diseases should be tagged with WPMED. Organisms should be tagged with {{WikiProject Micro}} and, if applicable, {{WikiProject Viruses}} or {{WikiProject Fungi}} instead of WPMED. Exceptions include pathogens that cause various illnesses that do not have their own disease names and infections are treated medically to prevent progression to disease.
• Physiology: Tag with {{WikiProject Anatomy}} and/or WPMED.
• Genetics: Tag terminology, general concepts, and lab techniques with {{Wikiproject Genetics}} and/or {{WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology}}. For genetic disorders, add WPMED with medical genetics task force. Add {{EvolWikiProject}} if it has a significant evolutionary component.
• Nerves: {{WikiProject Neuroscience}} for neuroscience, lab work, non-human neurology, and ideas about how nerves work; {{WikiProject Anatomy}} for relevant anatomy; and WPMED with neurology task force for clinical practice and diseases.
• Hospitals and other medical facilities where healthcare is undertaken: Add WPMED with low-importance to the project.
• Research facilities and laboratories: Add WPMED with low-importance only if the facility conducts research significant to medicine.

Yes

• Medications: Tag all of these with both {{WikiProject Pharmacology}} and {{WPMED}}. Add {{WikiProject PDD}} if the medication is a psychedelic, dissociative, or deliriant.
• Medical conditions, diseases, and syndromes. Use class and importance with judgement.

Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the parameters in the {{WPMED}} project banner on the article's talk page. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed medicine articles (empty as of November 2009).

Syntax

You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below. This is the rating syntax (ratings are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{WPMED}} or {{WPMED|class=|importance=}}

• Displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.

{{WPMED|class=A|importance=Top}}

• Classed A with Top priority. All assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in.

Quality assessment

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPMED}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPMED| ... | class=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class medicine articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class medicine articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class medicine articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class medicine articles)
• C (adds articles to Category:C-Class medicine articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class medicine articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class medicine articles)
• List (adds articles to Category:List-Class medicine articles)
• Template (adds templates to Category:Template-Class medicine articles)
• Dab (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class medicine articles)
• Category (adds categories to Category:Category-Class medicine articles and automatically sets importance=NA)
• NA (for pages, such as portals or project pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class medicine articles). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable.

Priority assessment

An article's priority assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WPMED}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPMED| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

• Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance medicine articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance medicine articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance medicine articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance medicine articles)
• NA (for pages, such as categories, templates, and disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-importance medicine articles). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable.

Task force parameters

If an article is within the scope of a task force, use the code below, replacing taskforce with the name of the desired task force:

{{WPMED| ... | taskforce=Yes | taskforce-imp=???| ...}}

The following parameters may be used for the taskforce variable, with the value always being Yes:

• cardiology (adds articles to the Cardiology task force categories)
• dermatology (adds articles to the Dermatology task force categories)
• emergency (adds articles to the Emergency medicine and EMS task force categories)
• gastroenterology (adds articles to the Gastroenterology task force categories)
• genetics (adds articles to the Medical genetics task force categories)
• hemonc (adds articles to the Hematology-oncology task force categories)
• nephrology (adds articles to the Nephrology task force categories)
• neurology (adds articles to the Neurology task force categories)
• ophthalmology (adds articles to the Ophthalmology task force categories)
• pathology (adds articles to the Pathology task force categories)
• psychiatry (adds articles to the Psychiatry task force categories)
• pulmonology (adds articles to the Pulmonology task force categories)
• radiology (adds articles to the Radiology task force categories)
• reproductive (adds articles to the Reproductive medicine task force categories)
• toxicology (adds articles to the Toxicology task force categories)

For task forces that utilize their own priority assessment, the taskforce-imp parameter should be used, replacing "taskforce" in taskforce-imp with one of the above values. Acceptable values for the taskforce-imp parameters are the same as for the importance parameter, listed above in #Priority assessment.

If a taskforce is indicated, but a taskforce-imp is not given, some taskforces will use the WPMED importance, whereas others will rank it as unassessed importance for the taskforce.

Quality scale

WikiProject content quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.	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.	Tourette syndrome
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018)
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 the A-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia: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 a featured 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.	Myocardial infarction
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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 existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	Fetal alcohol syndrome
B	The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	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 the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Tuberous sclerosis
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 substantial cleanup. 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 solve cleanup problems.	Islets of Langerhans
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: A useful picture or graphic Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.	Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.	AIDS-related lymphoma
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.	Acute care
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set 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.	List of medical schools in the United States
Category	Any category falls under this class.	Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area.	Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized.	Category:Medicine
Disambig	Any disambiguation page falls under this class.	The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title.	Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title.	Doctor
Template	Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes.	Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles.	Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.	Template:Infobox Disease
NA	Any non-article page that fits no other classification.	The page contains no article content.	Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified.	Portal:Medicine

Importance scale

The purpose of the importance rating is to direct the project's article improvement efforts towards the most important articles, and incidentally to provide a convenient shortlist of important topics for readers who are interested in medicine generally.

All diseases, conditions, medications, and tests are of "top" importance to people who are directly affected by them. The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability that the average reader of Wikipedia will look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics that are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to a student, expert or patient.

WPMED's specific guidelines for importance ratings are provided below. In making an assessment, it is often helpful to compare the article with others that already have the proposed rating. Links to each category are provided in the first column of this table:

Article importance grading scheme

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top priority	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to medicine. Strong interest from non-professionals around the world. Usually a large subject with many associated sub-articles. Less than 1% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating.	Tuberculosis or Cancer
High priority	Subject is clearly notable. Subject is interesting to, or directly affects, many average readers. This category includes the most common diseases and treatments as well as major areas of specialization. Fewer than 10% of medicine-related articles achieve this rating.	Coeliac disease or Mastectomy
Mid priority	Normal priority for article improvement. A good article would be interesting or useful to many readers. Subject is notable within its particular specialty. This category includes most medical conditions, tests, approved drugs, medical subspecialties, well-known anatomy, and common signs and symptoms.	Cholangiocarcinoma or Cramp
Low priority	Article may only be included to cover a specific part of a more important article, or may be only loosely connected to medicine. Subject may be specific to one country or part of one country, such as licensing requirements or organizations. This category includes most of the following: very rare diseases, lesser-known medical signs, equipment, hospitals, individuals, historical information, publications, laws, investigational drugs, detailed genetic and physiological information, and obscure anatomical features.	Leopard syndrome or Flynn effect
NA	NA means Not an Article. This label is used for all pages that are not articles, such as templates, categories, and disambiguation pages. (To mark an article as "needs assessed" or "not assessed," simply leave the importance parameter empty, like this: |importance= )	WikiProject Medicine

Statistics

WikiProject Medicine assessment statistics Medicine articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 7 14 20 23 64 FL 2 4 9 15 FM 77 77 GA 30 47 112 183 1 373 B 57 432 1,336 1,753 34 3,612 C 5 418 3,170 7,692 187 11,472 Start 133 4,576 17,883 1 434 23,027 Stub 1,605 9,943 509 12,057 List 23 270 580 17 890 Category 11,171 11,171 Disambig 172 172 File 479 479 Portal 540 540 Project 168 168 Redirect 456 839 5,922 7,217 Template 1,692 1,692 NA 4 27 31 Draft 3 305 308 Assessed 99 1,069 11,549 38,912 20,554 1,182 73,365 Unassessed 1 1 90 92 Total 99 1,069 11,550 38,913 20,554 1,272 73,457 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 244,958 Ω = 4.84 worklist • log • category

Task force statistics

Cardiology task force assessment statistics Cardiology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 FM 3 3 GA 2 2 5 1 10 B 13 26 26 11 76 C 11 43 94 60 9 217 Start 3 30 139 144 13 329 Stub 3 33 58 7 101 List 1 2 1 4 Category 87 87 Disambig 1 1 File 2 2 Redirect 4 6 4 41 55 Template 9 9 Assessed 29 109 306 279 143 29 895 Total 29 109 306 279 143 29 895 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 3,367 Ω = 4.59 worklist • log • category	Dermatology task force assessment statistics Dermatology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 2 2 FL 1 1 FM 1 1 GA 1 2 1 21 25 B 2 5 8 7 191 213 C 2 9 18 23 425 477 Start 3 22 44 756 825 Stub 8 39 702 749 List 1 1 2 19 23 Category 206 206 Disambig 15 15 File 15 15 Project 10 10 Redirect 3 4 2,317 2,324 Template 18 18 NA 1 1 Assessed 6 20 61 119 2,583 2,116 4,905 Unassessed 1 1 Total 6 20 61 119 2,583 2,117 4,906 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 11,216 Ω = 4.90 worklist • log • category
Emergency medicine and EMS task force assessment statistics Emergency medicine and EMS articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FM 3 3 GA 3 2 2 1 8 B 15 11 23 35 3 87 C 11 29 56 67 13 176 Start 6 21 65 176 20 288 Stub 1 3 28 60 13 105 List 1 1 3 6 11 Category 107 107 Disambig 1 1 File 2 2 Project 4 4 Redirect 1 1 7 18 140 167 Template 11 11 NA 3 3 Assessed 38 68 184 366 268 49 973 Total 38 68 184 366 268 49 973 worklist • log • category	Gastroenterology task force assessment statistics Gastroenterology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 2 2 5 FL 1 1 FM 1 1 GA 4 2 6 B 7 18 16 11 4 56 C 6 14 47 64 6 137 Start 5 39 76 12 132 Stub 11 41 5 57 List 1 1 2 Category 97 97 Disambig 2 2 Project 2 2 Redirect 1 2 160 163 Template 9 9 Assessed 14 43 119 196 271 27 670 Total 14 43 119 196 271 27 670 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,730 Ω = 4.40 worklist • log • category
Hematology-oncology task force assessment statistics Hematology-oncology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 2 4 FM 2 2 GA 2 1 5 8 B 7 20 25 13 76 141 C 6 17 39 89 212 363 Start 3 7 52 142 343 547 Stub 3 19 72 118 212 List 1 1 1 3 17 23 Category 395 395 Disambig 3 3 Project 3 3 Redirect 5 4 124 133 Template 14 14 NA 5 5 Assessed 17 51 142 324 546 773 1,853 Unassessed 3 3 Total 17 51 142 324 546 776 1,856 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 5,898 Ω = 4.63 worklist • log • category	Medical genetics task force assessment statistics Medical genetics articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 2 3 FM 1 1 GA 1 1 4 16 22 B 1 10 14 20 113 158 C 11 35 43 1 198 288 Start 3 27 85 321 436 Stub 1 9 80 58 148 List 2 2 3 4 11 Category 81 81 Disambig 2 2 Project 4 4 Redirect 3 3 100 106 Template 1 1 Assessed 4 27 90 238 190 712 1,261 Total 4 27 90 238 190 712 1,261 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 4,738 Ω = 4.49 worklist • log • category
Nephrology task force assessment statistics Nephrology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 FM 1 1 GA 1 1 2 B 4 7 13 5 29 C 6 12 25 23 1 67 Start 1 11 23 39 5 79 Stub 2 8 24 34 List 1 1 Category 74 74 Project 1 1 Redirect 1 4 5 10 Template 3 3 Assessed 12 33 72 95 84 6 302 Total 12 33 72 95 84 6 302 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 958 Ω = 4.52 worklist • log • category	Neurology task force assessment statistics Neurology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 2 3 1 1 7 FL 2 2 FM 2 2 GA 5 4 14 1 4 28 B 9 28 145 30 32 244 C 14 44 291 97 100 546 Start 4 17 347 170 168 706 Stub 62 92 69 223 List 9 7 5 21 Category 366 366 Disambig 10 10 Project 2 2 Redirect 1 91 12 111 215 Template 11 11 Assessed 34 94 964 410 502 379 2,383 Unassessed 4 4 Total 34 94 964 410 502 383 2,387 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 7,840 Ω = 4.47 worklist • log • category
Ophthalmology task force assessment statistics Ophthalmology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FM 4 4 GA 1 1 B 6 3 8 3 31 51 C 5 16 15 26 152 214 Start 2 13 40 121 327 503 Stub 1 13 139 156 309 List 1 5 6 Category 126 126 Disambig 3 3 Project 1 1 Redirect 2 5 32 39 Template 11 11 NA 2 2 Assessed 14 34 78 294 179 671 1,270 Total 14 34 78 294 179 671 1,270 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 5,380 Ω = 4.99 worklist • log • category	Pathology task force assessment statistics Pathology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 1 3 FL 1 1 GA 1 1 B 3 7 31 12 15 68 C 2 12 34 48 51 147 Start 2 12 56 84 133 287 Stub 1 14 62 61 138 List 1 1 1 1 4 Category 217 217 Redirect 3 5 16 24 Template 8 8 Assessed 7 34 142 212 242 261 898 Unassessed 2 2 Total 7 34 142 212 242 263 900 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 3,057 Ω = 4.75 worklist • log • category
Psychiatry task force assessment statistics Psychiatry articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 2 2 5 FL 1 1 FM 2 2 GA 2 4 4 4 3 17 B 16 27 36 15 48 142 C 14 49 89 106 130 388 Start 6 17 89 182 237 531 Stub 1 12 95 105 213 List 2 2 9 10 15 38 Category 566 566 Disambig 6 6 File 8 8 Portal 76 76 Redirect 1 4 3 6 49 63 Template 33 33 NA 1 1 Assessed 43 105 242 419 741 540 2,090 Unassessed 3 3 Total 43 105 242 419 741 543 2,093 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 5,945 Ω = 4.59 worklist • log • category	Pulmonology task force assessment statistics Pulmonology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 3 2 1 6 FM 3 3 GA 6 5 1 1 13 B 5 18 28 40 14 105 C 4 32 68 146 80 330 Start 20 86 230 72 408 Stub 3 21 46 24 94 List 3 6 20 34 63 Category 1,171 1,171 Disambig 8 8 File 4 4 Portal 1 1 Project 2 2 Redirect 2 9 15 127 153 Template 230 230 Assessed 18 85 220 497 1,546 225 2,591 Total 18 85 220 497 1,546 225 2,591 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 4,265 Ω = 4.46 worklist • log • category
Radiology task force assessment statistics Radiology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 2 FM 7 7 GA 2 1 1 1 5 B 5 6 8 3 2 24 C 4 9 18 26 5 62 Start 1 9 35 49 5 99 Stub 1 16 52 5 74 Category 47 47 Disambig 3 3 Project 2 2 Redirect 1 1 123 125 Template 1 1 Assessed 13 25 79 133 183 18 451 Total 13 25 79 133 183 18 451 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 1,269 Ω = 4.77 worklist • log • category	Reproductive medicine task force assessment statistics Reproductive medicine articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 2 FM 3 3 GA 3 3 3 1 10 B 8 26 50 41 4 129 C 5 34 105 135 7 286 Start 6 11 96 210 3 326 Stub 30 90 5 125 List 2 2 6 10 Category 228 228 Disambig 1 1 Project 1 1 Redirect 1 10 10 32 53 Template 11 11 NA 1 1 Assessed 25 76 293 495 277 20 1,186 Unassessed 1 1 Total 25 76 293 495 277 21 1,187 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 3,931 Ω = 4.48 worklist • log • category
Toxicology task force assessment statistics Toxicology articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 2 1 3 FL 1 1 FM 1 1 GA 8 2 2 12 B 3 17 42 15 77 C 5 37 62 55 18 177 Start 6 40 84 109 31 270 Stub 3 9 37 16 65 List 1 5 6 3 15 Category 100 100 Disambig 2 2 File 1 1 Project 3 3 Redirect 3 1 2 21 27 Template 9 9 Assessed 15 115 207 224 137 65 763 Unassessed 1 1 Total 15 116 207 224 137 65 764 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 2,703 Ω = 4.48 worklist • log • category

Requesting an assessment or re-assessment

What you can accomplish here

This process is to find out whether your article is currently assessed at the correct level (Stub, Start, C, B) and correct importance (Low, Mid, High, Top). If you have significantly expanded an article and it is rated below B class, or if you feel the rating is otherwise incorrect, then please feel free to list it below.

What you can NOT accomplish here

• If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, contact Project members at WT:MED or list it at Peer review instead.
• If you think the article is particularly well written, then you can nominate it as a possible Good Article or even as a possible Featured article.
• We do not currently have a process for identifying A-class articles.

Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM

• Thumb is currently assessed as B-class for medicine. This implies that "A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed." I'm not an expert but the anatomy section is obviously stub (the CMC joint isn't even mentioned) and the rest of the article has no structure. I was about to reassess the article as Stub or Start myself, but decided to ask here instead. Thanks. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done I agree and have changed to your suggestion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
    • I've removed the WPMED tag altogether: Anatomy is no longer within our scope. My bet is that the last assessment was before the upgrade to higher standards for B-class articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks both of you. WhatamIdoing: Oh! Should I be removing Medicine assessments from anatomy-related articles? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes, sort of, and I'd dearly love to have you (or anyone else) take on the task of reviewing them (you might start by looking at the list of articles here), but it's just a bit too complicated to give a simplistic 'yes' or 'no' answer to. See the second section on this page for a list of some of the considerations. As an example, if Thumb had a really substantial section on diseases of the thumb (especially if it was more than a "Here's the list, so click all the links" section), then we might keep it in both projects. Articles that are purely anatomy, with no more than a sentence or two of disease-related information, shouldn't be tagged with WPMED. For the articles that fall between these two extremes, feel free to use your judgment or ask here if you don't want to be bold -- or just go on to one that you are sure about. There's plenty of low-hanging fruit for this task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
          • OK. I'll pin the easy tasks down as I encounter them. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Lowenstein Jensen medium: Article has been extensively revamped and expanded since last assessment, I do think the quality is better than a start class article. Also would welcome suggestions on how to further improve the article from someone more experienced. Thanks. Dontmentionit (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Changed to C class. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Paul Randall Harrington is currently assessed as Start-class, Low-importance and could do with a reappraisal. It's been massively expanded over the last couple of days and may qualify for C class or higher. Suggestions for improvement appreciated also, if you feel energetic. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Changed to C class. Very good article I must say! I don't really know what else for you to add there, but it is very well on its way to a GA or possibly FA article. Renaissancee (talk) 22:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
• Was looking at the list of high importance stubs and found Saline (medicine). Request reassessment, doesn't look like a stub. Dontmentionit (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Changed to C class. Renaissancee (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I dunno: Is that really "high" importance? Is saline as important to the project as, say, common cold, and more important than 90% of our articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ciliary Muscle is currently assessed as a stud-class, low-importance, but has been expanded, improved, and extensively referenced with credible sources. It may qualify for atleast a C or B class. Thanks. Tarquilu (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)