Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

College football
WikiProject
Information
Project page talk
College football Portal talk
Participants talk
2006 NCAA DI-A Season talk
2006-07 Bowl Games talk
2006 Rankings talk
Project category talk
Master Team 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:CFBwelcome-project}} talk
Userboxes
Project Userbox talk
NCAA Teams talk
edit · changes


College football
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Class
Featured article FA 1 1
A
Good article GA 1 1 1 3
B 10 48 46 46 1 151
Start 1 58 150 191 1 401
Stub 1 33 76 367 5 482
Unassessed 1 1 30 349 381
Total 13 140 274 636 356 1419
There is a discussion going on about ratings within the College football Project. While no one should not rate an item, please do not spend much effort to rate items, as the system may change, and the actual criteria used may change. If you would like to join the discussion, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Concern_about_ratings. All views are welcome and will be considered.

Welcome to the assessment department of the College Football WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's college football 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 {{WikiProject College football}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:College football articles by quality and Category:College football 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 football}} 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 Football 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 football}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject College football| 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 football 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 the project talk page early in the WikiProject on how to rank articles (you can view the discussion here). Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Classification determinations for a table that attempts to consolidate the results of that 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. Sooner Schooner -- Please rate. Article Created 15 March, 2006; added to project 28 June, 2006. Z4ns4tsu 17:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Robert Neyland - I'm pretty sure importance is high, but I don't know about the article. CJC47 20:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
    This is currently being discussed between Mid and High. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Archive02#A new way of looking at things. --MECU≈talk 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dan McGugin - Requesting for importance, not status. It's pretty clear that trying to deduce importance for coaches from precedent is a mess. Quick: Fielding Yost, Woody Hayes, Robert Neyland, Bear Bryant -- Guess which one of the four is the only "High". Now which one do you suppose is the only "Low"? The above link dates back to summer; has any consensus been reached yet? I'm thoroughly biased but I think the predominant Southern coach from 1900-40, whose success was largely an impetus for Tennessee to hire Neyland [1], deserves to be better known; if anything, he's a similar figure to Yost though probably a half-step less important. In general there seems to be a huge bias against history in this project, which seems unfortunate -- there are a million other sites where I can look up last Saturday's scores. - PhilipR 04:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
    1. The article failed to note that he's in THE college hall of fame, not just the Register Hall of Fame. That simple fact pushes him up to Mid. I really don't think he's fundamental to the history of CFB. He has an impressive record, but did he change CFB in someway? In short, it's difficult to support a higher rating when the article is a stub and lacking many critical items needed to justify such a rating. If you worked in the article and expanded the information, I could see a high ranking possible. Also, there is a summary of the results from the discussion. See the above section on this one for a link to the table that was generated to help clearly categorize articles. As for the history bias, perhaps because historical items are harder to write about? --MECU≈talk 15:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I think Mid is perfectly reasonable. The coaches I would put in High are the absolutely fundamental ones to the history of the game: Bryant, Hayes, Paterno, Rockne, a few others. I agree that history is harder to write about, but IMO that's why it's so important to this project -- the sources are more far-flung and often not on the Web, so Wikipedia could well be the only encyclopedic summary about some of the key historical topics. "lacking many critical items needed to justify such a rating" - isn't the point of the importance assessment to be independent of article quality? Anyway, thanks for the reassess. - PhilipR 16:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Sylvester Croom - I've expanded on the information we have available about him, taking special care to whittle out any non-NPOV from previous edits. Doing so is difficult when the materials available are often propogandistic. For that reason I'd like a second opinion. Considering that I have added also some items of historical significance, perhaps the importance should be reconsidered as well.--Wvenus 19:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    1. Nicely written. I've upgraded this to "B" class. Since Croom is a coach of a non-ranked team, his importance should remain Low per our previous importance discussions.--NMajdan•talk 20:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I am not totally certain that I agree that the quality or national exposure of a college football team should be the only factor determining the importance of an article on its coach. As the article states in the section on historical significance, the hiring of this coach is a major step in civil rights integration. Some might argue that such a thing is more important than football to begin with. I appreciate your response however. The ratings system is a great incentive-builder for those who are interested in responsible scholarship. The discussion you mention on determining the criteria for importance in college football was informative, but it also took place in July. Does anyone agree that we should reconsider the criteria?--Wvenus 21:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
        • While I will say that because of the significance around the hiring of Croom in Mississippi is significant and may warrant a higher importance rating, I don't feel that we should reconsider the whole criteria. Its only been six months since all that was decided and it was a long, drawn out process. The criteria decided on should be used in 90+% of the situations but I do see some instances where a higher/lower ranking may be necessary.--NMajdan•talk 22:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I agree with Wvenus -- Croom is a particularly obvious example of a coach whose significance transcends Miss State's stature in any given season. - PhilipR 21:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
      • The ratings guidelines were to help sort out generally where articles should go. Anyone can make the claim that a specific article can be higher or lower with justification. Based upon what was presented here, I would be fine with a "mid" rating. It's also important to not get too wrapped up in the "importance" rating. They really don't mean too much. We're supposed to work on higher ranked articles, and some may, but folks just generally work on what they feel like which is what I do and I'm a-okay with that. I wish we didn't even have the importance rating. --MECU≈talk 23:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Georgia Bulldogs football was last reviewed on August 14, 2006, when it looked like this. Since that time, the article has received a lot of attention from various editors and some additional input would be hepful at this time. Please assess and/or provide any suggestions for improvement.--Tlmclain | Talk 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

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. Civil War (college football game) - Originally rated high, then changed to low? I'd say most rivalry games should be rated at least mid, let alone the oldest rivalry on the west coast and the 13th oldest in the nation. VegaDark 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    This will be either Low or Mid. Please see dicussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#A_new_way_of_looking_at_things. --MECU≈talk 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  2. Woody Hayes Looking at the scale, maybe he should be ranked higher. He is included for more than historical reference. Rkevins82 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    I changed to mid since he's a HOFer. If someone wants to consider him fundamental to knowing about college football, you can change him to High. But since he's dead and he era was in the 50's, I think the lower rating applies. Plus the article is already mostly written. MECU≈talk 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. College Football All-America Team - Originally rated Top. I'd say it needs to be rated High along with the other major college football awards like the Heisman Trophy, Maxwell Award, and Bednarik Award.--NMajdan•talk 20:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
    I changed it. I origionally rated it early July before the full discussion, so this does seem appropriate. MECU≈talk 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Calvin Johnson (football) was missing the WP College football template, so I gave him one. However, I'm not sure how "important" he is. My estimate is that his article is at "Start"; correct me if I'm wrong. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Start is fine with me. Probably can't be much above that until he leaves college at least. --MECU≈talk 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  1. I changed Dan McCarney since (1) he appeared to be misclassified, as the coach of a non-BCS non-Top 25 team; (2) he stepped down as coach anyway. PhilipR 01:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. 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
Lloyd Carr 21:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC) Start Mid Need coach box, image, organize large section a little
Rated Mid because he's a current major team coach		 Mecu

[edit] Schools

Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by

[edit] General Football & 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. Warning: This is a large page and may take some time to load.

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/College_football_articles_by_quality_log
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_College_football_Assessment_2661.html"