Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

College Basketball
WikiProject
Information
Project page talk
College Basketball Portal talk
Participants talk
2006 NCAA DI Season talk
2006 Rankings talk
2006 DI Tournament talk
Project category talk
Master Table talk
Team images talk
Year Page Format talk
Departments
Assessment talk
  •Worklist  •Log
Collaboration of the Month talk
Tools
Project banner talk
Coach infobox talk
Season infobox talk
Persondata talk
{{subst:CBBwelcome-project}} talk
Userboxes
Project Userbox talk
NCAA Teams talk
edit · changes


College basketball
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Class
Featured article FA
A
Good article GA
B
Start
Stub
Unassessed
Total
We're just starting this College basketball assessment page. Pleaes join the discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball/Assessment. All views are welcome and will be considered.

Welcome to the assessment department of the College Basketball WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's college basketball articles.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject College basketball}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:College basketball articles by quality and Category:College basketball articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.





Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the College football WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject College basketball}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
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 College Basketball 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.
Where can I get more comments about my article? 
This does not exist for this project yet. Perhaps you could join the project and create a peer review system?
What if I don't agree with a quality 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.
What if I don't agree with an importance rating? 
If you believe an item is mis-classed or it's class has since changed, please list it in the Requesting an assessment with your reasons. Please see the importance scale below and make sure your claims follow the criteria listed.
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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? 
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
Can I review my own article? 
You may not rate your own articles. New articles should be added to the peer review section of assessment. Large changes to articles that may change the quality should be added to the Requesting an assessment section. Articles that may need a change in Importance status should be listed in the Importance review section.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the project coordinators directly.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject College basketball}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject College basketball| class=??? | importance=???}} (These are currently the only options)

While assessing articles, please rate the class and importance with a capital letter. This will insure uniformity on the template.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed college basketball articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible. Sikhism (as of August 2006)
A
{{A-Class}}		 Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Durian (as of June 2006)
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}		 The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. Agriculture (as of June 2006)
B
{{B-Class}}		 Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & references.
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
 Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage. Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}		 The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

[edit] Importance scale

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 of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to 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 which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students or fans of college football.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country, state or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

There was significant discussion on how to rank items that is currently still ongoing until some items reach consensus. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_basketball#A_new_way_of_looking_at_things for the discussion and VOTE for all items, especially items that are not at least 75% decided one way. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College basketball/Assessment#Classification determinations for a table that attempts to consolidate the discussion. The table may not cover all articles. In that case, a reviewer should refer to the discussion to determine if there was a vote on that type of article and what the possible options are. In most cases, the votes were split between one or two levels so the reviewer should use one of those at their discretion.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

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 below. New articles do not need to be listed here unless they have gone unrated for more than 2 weeks. Please be sure to add new articles to the assessment table.

  1. Add articles here!

[edit] Importance review section

If you believe an item is incorrectly classified in importance or its importance has changed, please feel free to list it below along with your justification.

  1. Add articles here!

[edit] Peer Review

[edit] Grading scheme

The following grading scheme and classification system follow the criteria established by Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

[edit] Sample Table

This table can be copied as is and used as a basis for an entire new type, but for most cases, just copy a row in a table already there to add your new article assessment, and refer to this table to understand the meaning of the columns.

Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by
Put a link to the article here assessment date
Use ~~~~~		 Use the color scheme codes below for background color, and quality assessment title Use the color scheme codes below for background color, and importance assessment title Explain further why you give this quality and importance rating, highlight additional areas of concern Put your userid here
Use ~~~

If you don't know how to add or assess an article at these lists, please post at the project talk page instead. Your collaboration will be added here shortly.

[edit] Codes and meanings

Article progress grading scheme
Status Cell Color
Quality
Needs opinion #ffffff
Not started #888888
Stub #ff5555
Start class #ffa07a
B-Class #ffee00
A-Class #90ee90
FA #3399ff
Importance
Top #ff00ff
High #ff88ff
Mid #ffccff
Low #ffeeff

[edit] Players

Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by

[edit] Coaches

Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by

[edit] Schools

Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by

[edit] General Basketball & Miscellanious

Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Raw counts

This is too new to have stats. Created July 5, 2006.

[edit] Monthly changes

This is too new to have stats. Created July 5, 2006.

[edit] Log

Click here for the complete log.

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/College_basketball_articles_by_quality_log
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_College_Basketball_Assessment_042a.html"