Wikipedia:WikiProject NASCAR/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NASCAR WikiProject
General information
Main project page talk
Members talk
To-do list talk
Assessment talk
Organization talk
Standards talk
Project category talk
News talk
Project templates
Project banner talk
edit · changes ·
changes in NASCAR-related articles
NASCAR
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA
A 1 1
Good article GA
B 33 60 45 11 1 150
Start 37 102 140 82 2 363
Stub 21 46 172 199 8 446
Assessed 91 209 357 292 11 960
Unassessed 0 2 0 0 85 87
Total 91 211 357 292 96 1047

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

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 
As a member of the NASCAR WikiProject, 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 NASCAR 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_talk:WikiProject NASCAR 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_talk:WikiProject NASCAR 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_talk:WikiProject NASCAR directly.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject NASCAR}} 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):

{{WikiProject NASCAR}}
  • displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.
{{WikiProject NASCAR|class=FA|importance=Top}}
  • all assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in. Leaving the other parameters off does not hurt anything.
{{WikiProject NASCAR|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.


The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class and/or importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed NASCAR 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

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
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

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 fans of NASCAR. 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 prespective of someone from that region.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for NASCAR, or is generally notable to people other than fans of NASCAR. They define and determine the subject of the NASCAR WikiProject. NASCAR
High Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the sport of NASCAR, but not necessarily outside it. HANS device
Mid Subject contributes to the total subject of the NASCAR WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous. Road course ringer
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the sport of NASCAR, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Auggie Vidovich II

[edit] Requesting an assessment or re-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 the peer review department instead. Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM

  1. Polish Victory Lap - I would like to say that the Polish Victory Lap is significant and important within the sport of NASCAR, but is that just because I'm from Milwaukee, or is it only Mid importance? -slowpokeiv 22:32S, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    1. I would agree with Mid importance, even though I started the article, I live 1.5 hours north of Milwaukee (in Wisconsin), and Kulwicki was my idol. I don't hear the term used too much anymore. --Royalbroil 12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  2. Racing flags - reassessment requested on quality. (I placed too much work into it to be impartial) -slowpokeiv 21:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
  3. Johnny Benson - reassessment request. Has had two major rewrites and is ready to be regraded. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 12:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. I would call it a B-Class article, for the reasons that it needs citations, and imagery. It is well written, but probably not stable enough for WP:GA status, as such, I vote B, with not much to go before A or GA nomination. -slowpokeiv 17:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  4. Big Daddy's BBQ Sauce - does this article even qualify for WP:NASCAR? A non-paying sponsor??? -slowpokeiv 03:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. I think it would just because it was a sponsor of South Boston Speedway for a while. Plus, it's pretty popular in NASCAR lore. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    2. Just because they sponsored a car and a race track, does not make them NASCAR related. The Lowe's article isn't part of the WikiProject, but they do sponser a track. The same goes for Infineon Technologies. Mustang6172 05:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sharpie 500 Mid or High importance? (Is the Bristol night race important, or just popular? Or is it important because it is popular?) -slowpokeiv 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  6. NASCAR Rookie of the Year - Start or B class? (I might be being overly conservative, but I am also not impartial.) -slowpokeiv 18:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Probably B class. I was a little confused on the reasoning behind that, but it could possibly be for the lack of candidates from the early years. I think we'll find that out more when he get to expanding the articles for the older races. It may also help to throw in past Rookies of the Year in the old touring series as well. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 20:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  7. Ed Ash - low or no importance? -slowpokeiv 18:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. I agree. Might get some notability for being an engine builder. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 20:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      1. Agree to what? (was asking if there was any notability at all. Please respond with a clear "low", "nn", or other. Thanks for obliging this tired and easilly confused wikipedian. -slowpokeiv 00:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
      2. Low class. --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 10:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  8. Wood Brothers/JTG Racing - Two articles just merged. Still needs much cleaning up, but I tried to start. Self-nom by --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  9. Terry Cook - Expanded stub. Self-nom by --D-Day I'm all ears How can I improve? 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. Marked as start-class. There isn't really a whole lot more that can be added for now. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  10. Chase for the NEXTEL Cup- Cleaned up article, updated it, added new features...What do you think? Benje309 22:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    1. It looks much better.Mustang6172 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. X Year in NASCAR and category pages- How much information do we really need for anual report articles. Do we need a summary for every race or just results? How do we know when a category article is a stub or a start class article?Mustang6172 03:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_NASCAR_Assessment_6ad9.html"