Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject College football

Information
Project page	talk
College football Portal	talk
Participants	talk
2007 NCAA FBS Season	talk
2007-08 Bowl Games	talk
2007 Rankings	talk
Project category	talk
Master Team Table	talk
Team images	talk
Year Page Format	talk
Notability guidelines	talk
To do list	talk
Departments
Assessment	talk
•Worklist •Log
Newsletter	talk
Collaboration of the Month	talk
Peer review	talk
Tools
Project banner	talk
Persondata	talk
WP:CFB Templates	talk
{{subst:CFBwelcome-project}}	talk
Photos on Commons
Userboxes
Project Userbox	talk
NCAA Teams	talk

edit · changes

Shortcut: WP:CFB/A

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.

College football articles		Importance
College football articles		None	Total
Quality
	FA	9	9
	FL	13	13
	GA	75	75
	B	441	441
	Start	2677	2677
	Stub	10713	10713
	Assessed	13928	13928
	Unassessed	1437	1437
	Total	15365	15365

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.

1 Frequently asked questions
2 Instructions
3 Statistics
- 3.1 Monthly changes
4 Worklist and log

[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 parameter 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= }} (This is currently the only option)

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

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class college football articles)
FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class college football articles)
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class college football articles)
GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class college football articles)
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class college football articles)
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class college football articles)
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class college football articles)
NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article college football pages)

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.

[edit] Quality scale

**Article progress grading scheme** **[ v • d • e ]**
Label	Criterion	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 additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.	Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
FL {{FL-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.	FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
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 reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). 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 acceptable. 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, or 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}}	Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage 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.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and 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

For various reasons, importance scale criteria are not included in Wikiproject College football labels.

[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.

2004 NCAA Division I-A football rankings was assessed a while back. I have added the preseason poll table as well as made some other changes and was looking for a reassessment. Bombig (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest trying to get this to featured list status. A couple of the newer CFB rankings pages are featured, and there's no reason this one can't be as well. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

~~Chief Illiniwek~~
1. It's clearly a class B article. Things to work on: Provided requested citations. Remove inline external links. Fix all references in section to be fully fleshed out (not just an external link, but dates, names, etc). MOS scrubbing. Resolve dispute (which seems nearly done or very likely possible). This could be a GA by the end of the month with some work. MECU≈talk 16:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Battle Of The Palouse - this page was originally posted in early December and has not yet received a rating
~~Madre Hill~~. This was my first article, and I'm just wanting some input.
1. class=Start - See comments on assessment section of the project tag on the article’s talk page.09er (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Larry Smith (football)~~. I've done some additions, curious to see where it is. --Bobak (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
1. Moved to B class - See comments on assessment section of the project tag on the article’s talk page.09er (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Frank "Buck" O'Neill- I have added photos and content. I believe it is no longer a stub. 09er (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
1. Have reviewed, I agree no longer a stub. However, I feel someone else should rate it. But yes, not a stub. --Cra sh U nderride 17:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Dominique Barber~~ - I have expanded it dramatically, added an infobox, external links, etc. --Cra sh U nderride 19:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
1. Rated start. With expected information about the NFL coming. You should review the MOS and further add information about college career that is available (stats, games played, etc). Colorized table isn't appropriate either. MECU≈talk 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
~~Grant Wiley~~ - Expanded some, added more info, college career stats, some external links, removed two spam links from the refs., added a new table, etc. --Cra sh U nderride 06:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
1. Rated start. NFL and Personal/career section are deeply lacking and contain unreferenced info that needs to be cited. You should use the Template:cite web (or other cite tag) when making citations. Further MOS problems as well. MECU≈talk 20:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Bronko Nagurski Jr. - Expanded, added birthdate and reference for that, added infobox, sectioned, added wikilinks. I know this page is still a stub, clearly, but that's how it will have to remain. Why? Simple Google him. Only 19 results. If you take out the ", you get a lot more, however most are about his father. --Cra sh U nderride 05:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Todd Helton - The article has yet to receive a rating. Luke4545 (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Brandon Marshall - The article has yet to receive a rating. Luke4545 (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Add articles here!

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Monthly changes

All figures given for the *end* of each month
	July 2006		August 2006		September 2006		October 2006		November 2006		December 2006		January 2007
FA	0	0.00 %	1	0.09 %	1	0.08 %	1	0.08 %	1	0.07 %	1	0.06 %	1	0.05 %
A	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	1	0.05 %
GA	2	0.20 %	2	0.18 %	4	0.34 %	3	0.24 %	3	0.22 %	5	0.30 %	6	0.33 %
B	66	6.90 %	124	11.24 %	131	11.22 %	137	11.29 %	144	10.73 %	162	9.82 %	188	10.18 %
Start	123	12.87 %	280	25.39 %	321	27.48 %	327	26.93 %	362	26.97 %	481	29.15 %	592	32.07 %
Stub	121	12.66 %	256	23.21 %	319	27.31 %	344	28.34 %	431	32.12 %	610	36.97 %	705	38.19 %
Unassessed	644	67.36 %	440	39.89 %	392	33.56 %	402	33.11 %	401	29.88 %	391	23.70 %	353	19.12 %
Total	956		1,103		1,168		1,214		1,342		1,650		1,846

	February 2007		March 2007		April 2007		May 2007		June 2007		July 2007		August 2007
FA	1	0.05 %	2	0.07 %	2	0.07 %	2	0.07 %	2	0.07 %	2	0.07 %	2
A	1	0.05 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	2
GA	9	0.43 %	13	0.50 %	15	0.54 %	17	0.58 %	18	0.60 %	19	0.62 %	18
B	212	10.17 %	245	9.43 %	249	9.01 %	254	8.73 %	259	8.60 %	264	8.68 %	268
Start	673	32.29 %	931	35.82 %	957	34.64 %	990	34.03 %	1,032	34.26 %	1,036	34.07 %	1,058
Stub	847	40.64 %	1,405	54.06 %	1,508	54.58 %	1,579	54.28 %	1,685	55.94 %	1,720	56.56 %	1,728
Unassessed	341	16.36 %	3	0.12 %	32	1.16 %	67	2.30 %	16	0.53 %	0	0.00 %	192
Total	2,084		2,599		2,763		2,909		3,012		3,041		3,268

	September 2007		October 2007		November 2007		December 2007		January 2008		February 2008		March 2008
FA	5	0.15 %	5	0.15 %	5	0.15 %	9	0.20 %
A	1	0.03 %	2	0.06 %	2	0.06 %	0	0.00 %
GA	16	0.48 %	18	0.53 %	18	0.52 %	23	0.52 %
B	269	8.08 %	273	8.10 %	298	8.67 %	310	7.02 %
Start	1,081	32.49 %	1,095	32.49 %	1,260	36.66 %	1,308	29.63 %
Stub	1,753	52.69 %	1,759	52.20 %	1,844	53.65 %	2,444	55.36 %
Unassessed	202	6.07 %	218	6.47 %	10	0.29 %	321	7.27 %
Total	3,327		3,370		3,437		4,415