Wikipedia:WikiProject Sheffield Wednesday/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


WikiProject on
Sheffield Wednesday
Project pages
Main page talk
Current articles talk
New articles talk
Cleanup articles talk
Requested articles talk
Templates talk
Assessment talk
Watchlist n/a
Main club pages
The club talk
Records talk
History talk
Seasons talk
Former players talk
Managers talk
Hillsborough Stadium talk
Steel City derby talk
Other
WikiProject Football talk
Football portal talk

Welcome to WikiProject on Sheffield Wednesday's assessment page. This page focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Sheffield Wednesday 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 {{WPSWFC}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Sheffield Wednesday articles by quality and Category:Sheffield Wednesday 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 {{WPSWFC}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WPSWFC}} 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 Sheffield Wednesday 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 {{WPSWFC}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WPSWFC| 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 Sheffield Wednesday articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Sheffield Wednesday 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. Sheffield Wednesday F.C. (as of February 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. 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. Sheffield Rules (as of February 2008)
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. Ritchie Humphreys (as of November 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. Des Walker (as of February 2008)
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. Madjid Bougherra (as of February 2008)
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. Adelphi Hotel (Sheffield) (as of February 2008)


[edit] Importance scale

Articles are graded according to importance within Sheffield Wednesday according to the following scale:

Article importance grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Base criteria Sheffield Wednesday related criteria Examples
Top Subject is a
must-have for a good encyclopedia		 Main articles related to Sheffield Wednesday

Players and managers who have made a highly significant contribution to the club		 Sheffield Wednesday F.C.
Hillsborough Stadium
Kevin Pressman
Bob Brown
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge Players who have made over 100 appearances for the club
Players who have scored over 40 goals for the club
Managers who have been in charge of the club for over 100 games		 Chris Bart-Williams
Neil Dewar
David Pleat
Mid Subject fills in more minor details Players who have made over 50 appearances for the club
Players who have scored over 20 goals for the club
Managers who have been in charge of the club on a permanent basis		 Shefki Kuqi
Carl Shutt
Terry Yorath
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest Any other player
Any other manager
Any other Sheffield Wednesday related articles		 Pavel Srníček
Sean McAuley
Adelphi Hotel (Sheffield)

The above is just a guideline and is not intended as a definitive structure:

  • For example Danny Wilson has played for Sheffield Wednesday 98 times as well as managing the club for 80 games. Under the guidelines he would be placed in the Mid importance band as a player and as a manager, however as he has done both for a combined total of 178 games he should be placed in the High importance band.
  • Similarly, if a player or manager has earned additional notability whilst at the club, then he should also be placed in a higher band than prescribed above. For example, Peter Fox played just 49 games for Sheffield Wednesday, placing him in the Low importance band, but his record as the youngest player to ever play for the club earns him a Mid importance tag.
  • Some articles will not neatly fit in to the Sheffield Wednesday specific criteria – in this case you should use your own judgement and apply the base criteria, bearing in mind that we are grading the importance within Sheffield Wednesday.

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Sheffield Wednesday
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 1
A 1 1
Good article GA 1 1 2
B 5 5 3 2 15
Start 8 52 36 79 8 183
Stub 8 36 37 103 12 196
Assessed 22 93 78 185 20 398
Unassessed 105 105
Total 22 93 78 185 125 503

[edit] Historical counts

All figures given are for the end of each month
Feb 2008 Mar 2008 Apr 2008 May 2008
Featured article FA 1 0.21 % 1 0.21 % 1 0.20 % 1 0.20 %
A 1 0.21 % 1 0.21 % 1 0.20 % 1 0.20 %
Good article GA 1 0.21 % 2 0.42 % 2 0.41 % 2 0.40 %
B 14 2.99 % 14 2.94 % 14 2.87 % 15 3.01 %
Start 153 32.69 % 166 34.87 % 170 34.84 % 178 35.74 %
Stub 170 36.32 % 175 36.76 % 187 38.32 % 194 38.96 %
Unassessed 128 27.35 % 117 24.58 % 113 23.16 % 107 21.49 %
Total 468 476 488 498

[edit] Log

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

[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.