Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject on Football
Main pages
Main project talk
Task forces and sub-projects 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
Sources and links talk
Participants talk
Project milestones talk
Did You Know? archive 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 Criterion 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 additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. Tourette Syndrome (as of June 2008)
Featured list 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. List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records (as of February 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)
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 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 extensive 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)
List
{{List-Class}}		 Meets the criteria of a Stand-alone List, which is a page that contains primarily a list. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of A.S. Roma players (as of February 2008)


[edit] Importance scale

Article importance grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Base criteria Football-related 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. Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, positions, confederations, etc. Association football
Offside (football)
UEFA
High Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Teams with international notability. Top-level leagues, awards and competitions. Top-rated world-class players and managers. AFC Ajax
Roberto Baggio
UEFA Champions League
Mid Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Teams with nationwide notability. Players or managers that have participated at international level or in a top-level league. Mid-level leagues. U.S. Città di Palermo
Swiss Super League
Gareth Barry
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. Any other player, manager or team. Football-related lists, season articles. Leek Town F.C.
Roberto Biffi
List of Arsenal F.C. players

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Football
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 2 13 35 45 1 96
A 1 1 2
Good article GA 9 40 19 5 73
B 12 145 296 133 150 736
Start 18 196 1564 2381 1584 5743
Stub 1 67 2200 5760 6293 14321
List 16 130 39 185
Assessed 34 430 4152 8468 8072 21156
Unassessed 3 16 28 8379 8426
Total 34 433 4168 8496 16451 29582

[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
All figures given for the end of each month
Mar 2007 Apr 2007 May 2007 Jun 2007 Jul 2007 Aug 2007 Sep 2007
Featured article FA 24 0.27 % 28 0.29 % 30 0.30 % 35 0.33 % 37 0.29 % 39 0.27 % 49 0.30 %
A 1 0.01 % 3 0.03 % 2 0.02 % 2 0.02 % 2 0.02 % 1 0.01 % 1 0.01 %
Good article GA 15 0.17 % 16 0.17 % 22 0.22 % 26 0.24 % 30 0.23 % 38 0.26 % 40 0.24 %
B 275 3.05 % 349 3.66 % 362 3.64 % 408 3.82 % 458 3.55 % 490 3.37 % 518 3.17 %
Start 1,109 12.29 % 1,470 15.42 % 1,585 15.92 % 1,784 16.69 % 2,320 18.00 % 2,827 19.46 % 3,239 19.80 %
Stub 2,699 29.91 % 3,554 37.29 % 3,790 38.08 % 4,180 39.11 % 5,670 43.99 % 6,856 47.19 % 8,019 49.01 %
Unassessed 4,900 54.31 % 4,110 43.13 % 4,162 41.82 % 4,254 39.80 % 4,371 33.92 % 4,277 29.44 % 4,495 27.47 %
Total 9,023 9,530 9,953 10,689 12,888 14,528 16,361

[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.


1. FFC Turbine Potsdam - I´ve managed to turn the german article into a "good article" and made a translation. A check on my (a little bit rusty) english would be necessary.

Under 19 Bundesliga (football) - created from the German wikipedia, I'd like to know how it could be improved and where improvement is most necessary. Madcynic 02:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a quick look at 1. FFC Turbine Potsdam and tidied obvious grammatical errors. Think there still needs some work on tone and it doesn't read very well - ideally someone familiar with the club/subject?Paulbrock (talk) 20:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Weston-super-Mare A.F.C. - I'm pretty new to wikipedia editing and am not all that sure how to follow all the weird rules, but I know I worked a lot on this article and it's made great improvements since I started on it. I'd like to see how far I've gone. GauchoDude 01:46 PDT 8 October 2007

B Class. Remeber to add more refernces.--FGWQPR (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Universitario de Deportes - I've added a lot of new things to the article and I think it deserves to be rated to know how it's doing in the soccer section. MicroX 23:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

B class as well, low importance. --FGWQPR (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

SD Ponferradina by MarkamBey 02:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Start Class, low importance. --FGWQPR (talk) 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Dorin Goian, Ionuţ Rada, Ifeanyi Emeghara and Nicolae Dica - I've managed to turn these articles from stubs to articles with much more information. I need to know if these articles can be improved. Also, please check my english. I will try to edit more Romanian football players in the near future. Thanks - aquascape 20:11, 9 November 2007

Saskatoon Accelerators and Canadian Major Indoor Soccer League - I've made major edits to both of these pages and was hoping someone would take a look and give me some feedback on these pages. As well, I'd be curious whether they've made any level improvements (i.e. from stub to something else). Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Andover F.C. - the History section has been extended, with honours and a timeline added. Feedback and suggestions for additions / improvements would be most welcome. Bettia (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at it and It was better. I gave it a start rating. I still think there could be more improvements but good job.
Thank you. I've made a few more improvements and I'm asking around for more information. I'll call back later for a reassessment. Bettia (talk) 16:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few more improvements and expansions, and I very much like to have another assessment on this article please :) Bettia (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Shimizu_S-Pulse. I upgraded this to a Start from Stub after my recent addition and expansion work. Was wondering how far off B Class we are, and what needs to be worked on to get it there. There's currently a lack of any J-League team articles on B Class, so if we can get this one up to standard I can then start working on the others. OrangeWinghead (talk) 05:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Drogheda United F.C. - Made significant changes to this article a while back and I want to know how far it is off a B Class and what more needs to be done to get there. Abc183 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bohemian F.C. - Made significant changes to this article also and I want to know how far this is from a B Class and what more needs to be done to get there. Abc183 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bonnyrigg White Eagles Football Club - made significant changes over the last 6-12 months and would like to know where it currently stands with an eye for further improvement. batobatobato (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nery Castillo Pbradbury (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC) - rated myself based on ratings given by other projects, can someone verify Pbradbury (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Have done quite a bit of work on New Zealand Football Championship and would appreciate some feedback. Also plan to update the pages for individual teams, so far have only done Team Wellington, would also appreciate feedback on that. Gialloneri (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

1915 FA Cup Final I have, with the help of some other editors, added to this article. It is currently listed is a stub and I hope it can be upgraded Gmac101 (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Already assessed at B-class by another user. Good coverage of subject, generally well referenced. Potential for GA possibly? --Jameboy (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Clint Dempsey I've cleaned up the text and removed the Trivia section. What, if anything, still needs to be done to make this a B Class article? Hermanjoshua (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Already assessed at B-class by another user, a rating that I agree with. --Jameboy (talk) 21:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Starfire Sports Complex Not sure why this was rated start-class "Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added." I added quite a bit of info to the article a while back, don't know what else anyone would want to know. Gr8white (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look, and it is probably because the article is very short. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 15:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Coventry City F.C. This page was only Start class and has recently been changed to B-class. I believe it is of sufficient quality and quantity to have a higher rating and be recognised as one of the better football club pages.Officially Mr X (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I've had a quick look and it looks good. There is only one grade higher that can be unofficially awarded (A class), but I'm reluctant to upgarde the article as I feel that a Peer Review would be the best option for the article at this stage. This will give several experienced editors a chance to assess the article and suggest possible improvements, and if everything goes well then you can nominate it for Good Article or even Featured Article status. I haven't got time to have a thorough look through the article at present, but have the points made on the talk page been taken on board? If not then this would be a good place to start. Hope this helps. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 19:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

São Paulo Futebol Clube, I believe it can be nominated with a High level of importance due to the team being known internationally. Garavello (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Steffi Jones I've made major edits to this page and was hoping someone would take a look and give me some feedback. Thank you! --Romulus (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin Burns Looking for a rating on a new biography that I've been working on. Lansing12 10:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunfermline Athletic F.C., made a lot of changes and added new information to the article. Could possibly be nominated with a B level of importance due to the improvements made Exxy (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe J. League has improved a lot, but needs to be assessed. Thanks Shuvy87 (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Arbil fc article desevers and assessment as I have changed it considerably.I have added a lot of new information. User:Mo1993 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeremiah Massey. This article has undergone significant changes and should be reviewed.Sergiogr (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Veria FC. Not yet rated.Sergiogr (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hibernian F.C.. I have done a lot of work on this over the last two weeks or so to flesh out the history sections and provide a lot of citations. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Easter Road. I have also done some work on this article, which has yet to be rated.Jmorrison230582 (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

APOEL F.C., more information and references were added. Also changed to follow the WP:Football template more closely. Anarxia (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessed it myself as B class based on the criteria of the list above. Feel free to check the article, for any improvements or to verify the rating. Anarxia (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

1. FC Magdeburg, translated the remainder of the article from, am open for critical comments. Madcynic (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Champions League Final I think it has been improved significantly since it had been rated as start-class. Thanks. Lpy4606 (talk) 17:52, 01 June 2008 (UTC)

Reclassed as B class. I think it needs a fair bit more referencing. But I'd suggest getting a Peer Review, and pushing for GA / FA status. Peanut4 (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

CommunityAmerica Ballpark Unrated Article on the Current home of the Kansas City Wizards. Please rank it for me. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 04:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Add new requests above this line

[edit] Log

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

Languages