Wikibooks talk:WikiProject Languages/Assessment

Evaluating quality
The FSI report "Adapting and Writing Language Lessons" proposes three "qualities" by which a lesson can be evaluated. These are "strength/weakness", "lightness/heaviness" and "transparency/opacity" (see chapter 3 of the report for details). We could consider using these for quality rating here. Recent Runes (talk) 20:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll be importing w:Template:Grading scheme and w:Template:Importance scheme to make filling in this page easier. I'm still finishing up Template:WikiProject Languages.  I'll note when they're all in place. (Maybe I shouldn't have linked this page yet). – Adrignola talk contribs 21:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The grading template will help, but I expect it will need to be adapted to take account of the fact that each page is only a small part of a book unlike Wikipedia articles which are self-contained. Ideally, each lesson would have a specification against which it could be judged. I'm not so sure how useful the "importance" grading for each lesson would be though - perhaps this only applies to complete books, and even then I think forming an objective judgment would be very hard. Recent Runes (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The content of those templates can be created from scratch; the templates only handle links to the categories and the shades of the boxes for each level. I think I may refactor the templates to use "priority" instead of "importance". Some of the templates let you choose to do that manually, but I think that maybe at Wikibooks it'd be better to have "priority" be the default rather than the override. – Adrignola talk contribs 23:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All the templates are fully set up and working now. I've got the shells on this page and they're ready to be filled in. – Adrignola talk contribs 03:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Evaluating priority
i like "priority" over "importance", but is there a project guideline on how to determine priority? Number of speakers (so things like Spanish and Mandarin are prioritized), historical significance (so languages like Greek and Aramaic are prioritized), linguistic significance (Latin (as the basis of Romance languages) and Esperanto (as the first major constructed language)) or the "cool" factor (Ancient Egyptian for the hieroglyphs and Na'vi for the pop cred)? i would like to mark up the Esperanto chapters, but i'm not sure whether Esperanto counts as low or medium. On the one hand it's pretty obscure and only spoken by a couple million people. On the other it is the constructed language - the most well-known, the most widely-used, the most mature, etc. - and it is a pretty important topic within the field of linguistics. It's one of those things where, if you're going to talk about languages you have to mention conlangs, and if you're going to mention conlangs it's pretty much a given that you're going to mention Esperanto. Is medium a good match for that? --Indiana (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Both the priority and quality scales need to be filled in by WikiProject participants. The criteria you describe above are for importance and that is why I changed it to use priority.  Priority in this case allows for grading which pages within a language book are most valuable in providing the essentials needed to be able to learn/speak/write the language effectively.  Any external factors will not come into play. – Adrignola talk 16:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether tagging a particular lesson / page will always be fine grained enough. If a book were being written to provide material for school / college courses, then these usually have a fixed number of lesson periods available. In that case, each page could have some "essential" and some "supplementary" material. Teachers would probably form their own view about the value of the content for their classes anyway. Recent Runes (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The creation of the template for WikiProject Languages was primarily to test out all the features of Template:WPBannerMeta. If contributors decide they don't want to use the priority classification, it can be removed.  Ideally priority and quality would be used in combination with a table tallying each updated by a bot (which we don't have).  Contributors would then examine which high priority pages are lacking in quality and work on those first.  These classifications are not for the readers, but rather for the contributors, which is why the template is on the discussion pages.  It should help to facilitate collaboration, so whatever works best for the members of the WikiProject. – Adrignola talk 21:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Rating
I just finished my book, Understanding Scientific Terms, after several years. How do I get it graded for quality?

Understanding Scientific Terms

Rozzychan (discuss • contribs) Rozzychan (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)