Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers

WikiProject Green Bay Packers

Main page	talk
Members	talk
Newsletter	talk
Collaboration	talk
Articles
Assessment	talk
• Worklist • Log • Stats
Main category	talk
Notable articles	talk
Templates
Templates	talk
Project banner	talk
Invite banner	talk
Welcome banner	talk
Userbox	talk

edit · changes

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Green Bay Packers, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Packers-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 program.

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

1 FAQ
2 Instructions
3 Statistics
4 Requests for assessment
5 Log

[edit] FAQ

See also the general assessment FAQ.

Generic 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 {{GreenBayPackersProject}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{GreenBayPackersProject}} 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 WikiProject Green Bay Packers 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

Add {{GreenBayPackersProject|class=???|importance=???|nested=???}} to the talk page of articles within our scope and assess the class, importance, and nesting (if required). This page will be automatically updated with any pages added to one of our categories that needs a banner on the talk page.

[edit] Class

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{GreenBayPackersProject}} project banner on its talk page:

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Cat:Green Bay Packers articles by quality

FA (adds articles to Cat:FA-Class Green Bay Packers articles) - used for articles that have been promoted through the FAC process.
FL (adds articles to Cat:FL-Class Green Bay Packers articles) - used for articles that have been promoted through the FLC process.
A (adds articles to Cat:A-Class Green Bay Packers articles)
GA (adds articles to Cat:GA-Class Green Bay Packers articles) - used for articles that have been promoted through the GAC process.
B (adds articles to Cat:B-Class Green Bay Packers articles)
Start (adds articles to Cat:Start-Class Green Bay Packers articles)
Stub (adds articles to Cat:Stub-Class Green Bay Packers articles)
List (adds articles to Cat:List-Class Green Bay Packers articles) - used for pages that are defined as lists.
NA (for pages where assessment is unnecessary (Wikipedia namespace) adds items to Cat:NA-Class Green Bay Packers pages)
Template (adds templates to Cat:Template-Class Green Bay Packers articles) - used for the Template namespace
Category (adds categories to Cat:Category-Class Green Bay Packers articles) - used for the Category namespace
Image (adds images to Cat:Image-Class Green Bay Packers articles) - used for the Image namespace

If a rating is not assigned, the article will be filed in Cat:Unassessed-Class Green Bay Packers articles. The class should be assigned according to the grading scheme.

[edit] Importance

The following values may be used for the importance parameter. Importance is a lot more subjective and less set in stone. Please remember though that this is the importance scale for the Green Bay Packers, not overall importance (An example is Kurt Warner, who is a highly important article to the NFL or the Rams, but is low-importance to the Packers because he had to significant impact while part of the Packers).

Cat:Green Bay Packers articles by importance

Top (adds articles to Cat:Top-importance Green Bay Packers articles) - All Pro Football Hall of Famers, core articles to the project, seasons with an appearance in a championship game, etc.
High (adds articles to Cat:High-importance Green Bay Packers articles) - Most Packers Hall of Famers, less important core articles, important players, seasons that ended in the playoffs but not the championship game, etc.
Mid (adds articles to Cat:Mid-importance Green Bay Packers articles) - Played for more than 3 years, most coaches, mid-impact on the organization, season years that didnt end in the playoffs, etc.
Low (adds articles to Cat:Low-importance Green Bay Packers articles) - Played for or somehow part of the organization, low or no significant impact on the organization, etc.
NA (adds articles to Cat:No-importance Green Bay Packers articles) - For any page in the Template, Category, Image, or Wikipedia namespaces.
Leave blank (adds articles to Cat:Unknown-importance Green Bay Packers articles) - for unknown importance articles.

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Cat:Unassessed-Class Green Bay Packers articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Cat:Unknown-importance Green Bay Packers articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below. -->

[edit] Nesting

If the project banner is inside {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} or {{WikiProjectBanners}}, add |nested=yes to the project banner. The default is |nested=no.

[edit] Quality scale

**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 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

**Article importance grading scheme** **[ v • d • e ]**
Label	Criteria	Examples
Top {{Top-Class}}	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.	Australia
High {{High-Class}}	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Manchester United F.C.
Mid {{Mid-Class}}	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	0.999...
Low {{Low-Class}}	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

Green Bay Packers articles		Importance
Green Bay Packers articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	Total
Quality
	FL	1	3			4
	GA	1	1		1	3
	B	5	8	4	3	20
	Start	19	35	56	69	179
	Stub	27	64	269	546	906
	List		3	2	1	6
	Assessed	53	114	331	620	1118
	Total	53	114	331	620	1118

[edit] Requests for assessment

Any article found on Wikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay Packers/No banner needs the project banner to be placed on it, making sure to assess the article by class and importance. If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it or feel that an article has been wrongly assessed, please feel free to list it below. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

Add new requests above

[edit] Log

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