Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Information
Project page	talk
•Discussion archives
Participants	talk
2007 MLB team articles	talk
Articles	talk
Dif. •1 •2 •3 •talk
Project category	talk
Baseball Portal	talk
Departments
Assessment	talk
•Worklist •Log
Article Improvement Drive	talk
Peer review	talk
Tools
Project banner	talk
Userboxes
Large Userbox	talk
Project Userbox	talk
Task forces
Baseball Players	talk
Little League	talk
Old-time Base Ball	talk

edit · changes

Baseball articles		Importance
Baseball articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA		1	4	2	1	8
	A		1				1
	GA	1		4	1		6
	B	10	55	27	15	7	114
	Start	29	126	163	193	71	582
	Stub	4	85	85	681	366	1221
	Assessed	44	268	283	892	445	1932
	Unassessed	0	41	94	27	9267	9429
	Total	44	309	377	919	9712	11361

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Baseball! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Baseball 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 {{Baseball-WikiProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Baseball articles by quality, Category:Baseball articles by importance, Category:Baseball articles needing attention, Category:Baseball past collaborations, and Category:Baseball past selected articles. The quality and importance ratings serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. There is also Category:Non-article Baseball pages) for things like redirect pages, templates, categories, images, etc.

1 Frequently asked questions
2 Instructions

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated?: As a member of the WikiProject Baseball, you can do it yourself. If you're unsure, list it in the requesting an assessment section below.
Who can assess articles?: Any member of WikiProject Baseball is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.
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?: Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.
What if I don't agree with a rating?: Relist it as a request or contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.
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!

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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball directly.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Baseball-WikiProject}} project banner on its talk page. You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below.

This is the rating syntax (ratings and dates are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{Baseball-WikiProject}}

displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.

{{Baseball-WikiProject|class=Stub|importance=Low}}

all assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in. Leaving the other parameters off does not hurt anything.

{{Baseball-WikiProject|class=Start|importance=Mid|attention=yes}}

if an article needs immediate attention, add the attention tag and please leave talk notes as to why. "yes" is the only valid parameter here. If it doesn't need attention, leave the parameter off.

{{Baseball-WikiProject|class=B|importance=High|attention=yes|past-selected=[[July]] [[2006]]|past-collaboration=[[April]] [[2006]]}}

if an article has been the SATM or COTM, these tags get added in this format. This is the actual project tag of Philmont Scout Ranch.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Baseball articles)
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Baseball articles)
GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Baseball articles)
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Baseball articles)
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Baseball articles)
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Baseball articles)
NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article Baseball pages). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable.

Articles for which a valid class and/or importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Baseball articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Baseball articles)
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Baseball articles)
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Baseball articles)
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Baseball articles)

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

Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.

**Article progress grading scheme** **[ v • d • e ]**
Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, 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.	Supernova (as of February 2007)
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 March 2007)
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.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
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. 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 of baseball. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country 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. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the perspective of someone from that region.

**Article importance grading scheme**
Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for Baseball, or is generally notable to people other than students of Baseball. They define and determine the subject of the Baseball WikiProject.	Baseball
High	Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of Baseball, but not necessarily outside it.	Lou Gehrig
Mid	Subject contributes to the total subject of the Baseball WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous.	At bats per home run
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Baseball, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic.	San Pedro de Macorís

[edit] Requesting an assessment or reassessment

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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM
Like this (and put "(re-)assessment request" in your edit summary of this assessment page), leave reasons for a reassessment.

[edit] Florida Marlins, Cleveland Indians, and Detroit Tigers

For Talk:Florida Marlins, Talk:Cleveland Indians, and Talk:Detroit Tigers. I changed the importance rating for the Florida Marlins talk page myself, and I don't see the previously listed teams as "High" on the importance scale. I view them as "Mid." Other thoughts? -- Win777 17:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boston Red Sox

For Boston Red Sox: Shouldn't the importance rating for this page be more like "Top" rather than just "High"? -- Smuglife 22:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion, all MLB and teams fall into either "Mid" or "High" ratings, the "High" importance teams being the ones of worldwide transcendence (New York Yankees, etc.). --ChaChaFut 22:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree. I'll be moving the Yankees and Red Sox to high importance. Jpers36 20:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Lewis

For Ted Lewis (baseball player) I added this article, I'm sure it doesn't comply with standards. Could someone take a look please -- Steadymarvin 17:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Rogell

Did this one last year. Don't want to rate my own work but, eh, I think it's pretty good. Wish I had a couple more pictures. Desjardfan 09:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)