Difference between revisions of "Case Studies/Evaluation"

• Contains a concise and complete description of the use in well-written prose.
• Explains the novelty or importance of the use-case.
• Has complete information, including: an accompanying image with attribution information, quote, short description, and licensing metadata.
• Would be worthy of being featured elsewhere on the web.

• No edits should be necessary unless new information becomes available.

{{#if: {{#ask:Has quality::A-Class|searchlabel=}}|{{#ask:Has quality::A-Class|mainlabel=-|?Case study title|format=ul|limit=1|order=random|searchlabel=}}|* No Case Studies have been marked as A-Class.}}

• Contains good, complete descriptions of the use, both short and full.
• Has an image and short description, but might be missing one or two data fields or a quote.
• May need small improvements writing style, gammar, spelling, etc.
• Image might is missing attribution information.

• Fill in missing or incomplete metadata.
• Fix any minor issues with writing style.

{{#if: {{#ask:Has quality::B-Class|searchlabel=}}|{{#ask:Has quality::B-Class|mainlabel=-|?Case study title|format=ul|limit=1|order=random|searchlabel=}}|* No Case Studies have been marked as B-Class.}}

• Contains an adequate full description of the use.
• Some missing image, quote, or metadata.
• Might be missing a short description.
• May contain unclear language or obviously incorrect grammar.

• Fill in missing or incomplete metadata, short description, image, quote, etc.
• Improve prose of the Case Study. The Wikipedia Manual of Style is a good guide.

{{#if: {{#ask:Has quality::C-Class|searchlabel=}}|{{#ask:Has quality::C-Class|mainlabel=-|?Case study title|format=ul|limit=1|order=random|searchlabel=}}|* No Case Studies have been marked as C-Class.}}

• Has the beginnings of descriptions about the use-case.
• Substantial information missing, such as a short description, image, or metadata.
• Could contain some metadata, but is mostly incomplete.

• Begin or complete the short or full descriptions of the Case Study.
• Fill in missing or incomplete metadata.
• Find and upload an appropriate image and quote (with proper licensing and attribution information).

{{#if: {{#ask:Has quality::Start|searchlabel=}}|{{#ask:Has quality::Start|mainlabel=-|?Case study title|format=ul|limit=1|order=random|searchlabel=}}|* No Case Studies have been marked as Start.}}

• Has no description.
• Doesn't have more than one or two data fields.

• Begin or complete the short and full descriptions of the Case Study.
• Fill in missing or incomplete metadata.
• Find and upload an appropriate image and quote (with proper licensing and attribution information).

{{#if: {{#ask:Has quality::Stub|searchlabel=}}|{{#ask:Has quality::Stub|mainlabel=-|?Case study title|format=ul|limit=1|order=random|searchlabel=}}|* No Case Studies have been marked as Stub.}}

• The Case Study represents a highly successful and novel use case which illustrates the power of CC licensing.
• The site or platform using CC licensing is highly trafficked.
• The Case Study was an early adopter of CC licensing.
• The work or site under CC is of a form or produced in an industry that isn't typically associated with permissive licenses, and illustrates the compatability of Creative Commons with traditional media.
• For platforms or sites, the Case Study reports a very large volume of work or a community of users.

• The Case Study is an example of a platform or artist using Creative Commons, but has not developed a community of users.
• For platforms or sites, the volume of work represented by the Case Study is low.