Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

WikiProject on Football
Main pages
Main project talk
Football in...
  Australia talk
  The USA and Canada talk
  Italy talk
  English non-league talk
Football portal talk
New articles talk
Cleanup articles talk
Football AID
Article improvement drive talk
  Previous collaborations talk
  Featured collaborations talk
  Previous nominations talk
Football Assessment
Assessment Department talk
  Assessment log talk
Manual of style
Club articles talk
  Club templates talk
National team articles talk
  National team templates talk
National association articles talk
  National assn. templates talk
Competition articles talk
Match articles talk
Player articles talk
Stadium articles talk
Other
Category structure talk
Notability criteria talk
Template list talk
External links talk
Shortcut:
WP:WPFA

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on Football, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's football (soccer) related articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 programme.

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

Contents

[edit] FAQ

See also the general assessment FAQ.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{Football}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{Football}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the football WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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.
8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
People at Wikipedia:Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page.
9. What if I don't agree with a 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.
10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
11. What if I have a question not listed here?
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Football}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{Football| class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values for the class parameter may be used:

The following values for the importance parameter may be used:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed football articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance football articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality 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, 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)
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. 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

Article importance grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria Examples
Top Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. Australia
High Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Manchester City F.C.
Mid Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. 0.999...
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Chrono Cross


[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Football
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 3 7 9 4 23
A 1 1 2
Good article GA 1 3 6 5 15
B 14 60 39 11 147 271
Start 10 58 171 85 783 1107
Stub 15 215 257 2206 2693
Assessed 29 143 441 362 3136 4111
Unassessed 0 3 8 12 4872 4895
Total 29 146 449 374 8008 9006

[edit] Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month
Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007
Featured article FA 9 1.59 % 15 1.28 % 18 0.37 % 20 0.35 % 21 0.32 % 22 0.30 % 24 0.30 %
A 3 0.53 % 2 0.17 % 4 0.08 % 3 0.05 % 2 0.03 % 4 0.06 % 1 0.01 %
Good article GA 6 1.06 % 10 0.85 % 12 0.25 % 15 0.26 % 15 0.23 % 14 0.19 % 15 0.19 %
B 30 5.30 % 49 4.18 % 130 2.69 % 149 2.57 % 186 2.85 % 212 2.92 % 234 2.92 %
Start 45 7.95 % 103 8.80 % 432 8.95 % 496 8.56 % 602 9.22 % 786 10.82 % 930 11.61 %
Stub 77 13.60 % 125 10.67 % 479 9.92 % 541 9.34 % 1,262 19.32 % 1,677 23.10 % 2,081 25.99 %
Unassessed 396 69.96 % 867 74.04 % 3,754 77.74 % 4,570 78.87 % 4,443 68.03 % 4,546 62.61 % 4,722 58.97 %
Total 566 1,171 4,829 5,794 6,531 7,261 8,007

[edit] Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class.
Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007
Featured article FA +6 +66.67 % +3 +20.00 % +2 +11.11 % +1 +5.00 % +1 +4.76 % +2 +9.09 %
A −1 −33.33 % +2 +100.00 % −1 −25.00 % −1 −33.33 % +2 +100.00 % −3 −75.00 %
Good article GA +4 +66.67 % +2 +20.00 % +3 +25.00 % ±0 ±0.00 % −1 −6.67 % +1 +7.14 %
B +19 +63.33 % +81 +165.31 % +19 +14.62 % +37 +24.83 % +26 +13.98 % +22 +10.38 %
Start +54 +128.89 % +329 +319.42 % +64 +14.81 % +106 +21.37 % +184 +30.56 % +144 +18.32 %
Stub +48 +62.34 % +354 +283.20 % +62 +12.94 % +721 +133.27 % +415 +32.88 % +404 +24.09 %
Unassessed +471 +118.94 % +2,887 +332.99 % +816 +21.74 % −127 −2.78 % +103 +2.32 % +176 +3.25 %
Total +605 +106.89 % +3,658 +312.38 % +965 +19.98 % +737 +12.72 % +730 +11.18 % +746 +10.27 %

[edit] Requests for 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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

Brian Rice - saw the page come in whilst using NPWatcher, and decided to see what I could do with it when I know virtually nothing about Scottish football! (I've been singing "We all live in a world of Brian Rice" ever since...) Bencherlite 00:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Clásico Regiomontano - This article is fairly important to the nation of Mexico, yet I think that this article can be improved. Please provide an assesment. Hari Seldon 05:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Add new requests above

[edit] Log

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Football_Assessment_edf3.html"