View source for NMAC 5108/Spring 2025/Wikipedia/Wikipedia Evaluation Rubric

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="font-size:22px; color:#B2BABB;">{{BASEPAGENAME}}/</span>{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}

{| class="wikitable"
! Criterion !! Exemplary (4 points) !! Proficient (3 points) !! Developing (2 points) !! Needs Improvement (1 point)
|-
! Well-Written
| The article is clear, well-organized, and engaging. It adheres to Wikipedia's style guidelines, avoiding jargon and unnecessary complexity. It demonstrates strong writing mechanics.
| The article is mostly clear and well-structured but may have minor organizational or stylistic issues. Writing is solid but could be more engaging or polished.
| The article has some clarity or organization issues. It may contain awkward phrasing, excessive jargon, or inconsistent style.
| The article is poorly written, unclear, and disorganized, making it difficult to follow. It does not adhere to Wikipedia’s style guide.
|-
! Comprehensive
| The article covers its topic fully, leaving no major gaps. It addresses all relevant aspects necessary for a Good Article.
| The article is mostly comprehensive but may have minor missing details or underdeveloped sections.
| The article has notable omissions or lacks depth in certain areas. Key points may be missing or inadequately explained.
| The article is incomplete, failing to address major aspects of the topic. It lacks depth and detail.
|-
! Well-Sourced and Verifiable
| The article thoroughly cites reliable sources, following Wikipedia's citation guidelines. References are properly formatted, and information is verifiable.
| The article mostly cites reliable sources correctly, but some citations may be missing, improperly formatted, or unclear.
| The article has inconsistent citation practices, missing key sources, or relying on questionable references.
| The article has significant sourcing issues, with many claims unverified or poorly cited. It may contain original research.
|-
! Neutral Point of View (NPOV)
| The article presents information fairly and without bias. It avoids promotional or opinionated language and follows Wikipedia’s neutrality policies.
| The article is mostly neutral but may have slight bias or unbalanced coverage. Some areas may need refinement to align fully with NPOV.
| The article contains noticeable bias, promotional language, or one-sided coverage. It does not fully adhere to Wikipedia’s neutrality guidelines.
| The article is highly biased, opinionated, or promotional, violating Wikipedia’s neutrality standards.
|-
! Stable and Well-Maintained
| The article is stable, meaning it is not frequently edited in a disruptive manner. It is well-maintained with few issues.
| The article is mostly stable but may have minor inconsistencies due to recent edits.
| The article has some instability, with frequent changes or unresolved disputes.
| The article is highly unstable, with ongoing edit wars, vandalism, or major inconsistencies.
|-
! Well-Illustrated (if applicable)
| The article includes relevant images that enhance understanding. Images are properly formatted, captioned, and follow copyright guidelines.
| The article contains relevant images but may lack proper formatting, captions, or attribution.
| The article includes images, but they are of low quality, poorly formatted, or lack necessary attribution.
| The article lacks relevant images, or included images violate copyright policies.
|-
! Adherence to Wikipedia Policies
| The article fully complies with Wikipedia’s guidelines, including verifiability, notability, and avoiding original research.
| The article mostly follows Wikipedia’s policies, with minor inconsistencies.
| The article has notable policy violations that need correction before meeting Wikipedia standards.
| The article significantly violates Wikipedia’s core policies, requiring major revision.
|}

== Total Score: ____ / 28 ==

* '''A (26-28 points):''' The article meets or exceeds ''Good Article'' standards.
* '''B (22-25 points):''' The article is strong but needs some refinements to reach ''Good Article'' quality.
* '''C (18-21 points):''' The article is developing but has gaps that prevent it from achieving ''Good Article'' status.
* '''D (14-17 points):''' The article has significant weaknesses and requires major revision.
* '''F (Below 14 points):''' The article does not meet basic ''Good Article'' criteria and requires extensive work.