Powered by
Share this page on
Article provided by Wikipedia

WikiProject Philosophy

Welcome to the assessment department of the Philosophy WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Philosophy related 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 {{"Philosophy}}
project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of "Category:Philosophy articles by quality and "Category:Philosophy articles by importance.


Current status[edit]

"Philosophy task force assessment statistics "worklist • "log • "category

Frequently asked questions[edit]

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.


Quality assessments[edit]

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


The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see "Wikipedia:Quality scale for assessment criteria):

FA (for "featured articles only; adds articles to "Category:FA-Class Philosophy articles) ""Featured article "FA 
A (adds articles to "Category:A-Class Philosophy articles) ""A-Class article "A 
GA (for "good articles only; adds articles to "Category:GA-Class Philosophy articles)  "GA 
B (adds articles to "Category:B-Class Philosophy articles) ""B-Class article "B 
C (adds articles to "Category:C-Class Philosophy articles) ""C-Class article "C 
Start (adds articles to "Category:Start-Class Philosophy articles) ""Start-Class article "Start 
Stub (adds articles to "Category:Stub-Class Philosophy articles) ""Stub-Class article "Stub 
FL (for "featured lists only; adds articles to "Category:FL-Class Philosophy articles) ""Featured list "FL 
List (adds articles to "Category:List-Class Philosophy articles)  "List 

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

Book (for "Wikipedia books; adds pages to "Category:Book-Class Philosophy articles) ""Wikipedia Book "Book 
Category (for "categories; adds pages to "Category:Category-Class Philosophy articles) ""Category page "Category 
Disambig (for "disambiguation pages; adds pages to "Category:Disambig-Class Philosophy articles) ""Disambiguation page "Disambig 
Draft (for "drafts; adds pages to "Category:Draft-Class Philosophy articles)  "Draft 
File (for "files and "timed text; adds pages to "Category:File-Class Philosophy articles)  "File 
Redirect (for "redirect pages; adds pages to "Category:Redirect-Class Philosophy articles) ""Redirect page "Redirect 
Portal (for "portal pages; adds pages to "Category:Portal-Class Philosophy articles)  "Portal 
Project (for "project pages; adds pages to "Category:Project-Class Philosophy articles)  "Project 
Template (for "templates and "modules; adds pages to "Category:Template-Class Philosophy articles)  "Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to "Category:NA-Class Philosophy articles)  "NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in "Category:Unassessed Philosophy articles)  "??? 

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.

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance assessment[edit]

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:

Importance scale[edit]

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. "Epistemology
"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. Articles about most significant individuals 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

Requesting an assessment[edit]

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 at the bottom below.

I've rated this C class and low importance. My main problem with the article is that it is not as clear as it could be. The lead is worded in quite a confusing way and could be simplified (if you then want to go into detail, do that in the main body of the article). The article also needs background information - what you've got on its development is good, but a reader thrown straight into that may have no idea what the idea is about or responding to. You have some good sources, but heavily rely on a few - it wouldn't hurt to find more.
Therefore, I suggest:
  • A section on the background is written to make the context of the article clearer to someone approaching the idea for the first time.
  • Improve the lead. I would suggest that you have one paragraph in the lead per section of the article (though no more than 4 paragraphs). Cover each important area in a much more simple way that you will in the rest of the article. I suggest you fix the lead once everything else is sorted.
  • See if you can find a few more references.
I hope that helps. Leave a message on "my talk page if you have nay further questions or anything. "ItsZippy ("talk • "contributions) 18:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
  • I have posted on the Talk page the next statement:
If we understand something only if we can explain it as the effect of some cause, and understand this cause only if we can explain it as the effect of a preceding cause, then this chain of cause-and-effect either goes on ad infinitum or it ends at some primordial cause which, as it cannot be reduced to a preceding cause, cannot be understood by definition, so causality ultimately cannot explain anything. Discussion, please (on the Talk pag)e about whether to put it in the causality article. Antonquery ("talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. "Greg Bard ("talk) 04:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
) ) WikipediaAudio is not affiliated with Wikipedia or the WikiMedia Foundation.