Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| College football WikiProject |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| edit · changes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Beginning discussion
I blatently copied the Military page on this topic and converted to college football. The importance scale is open for discussion, as in creating it, it was hard to define the levels. Generally, current information should be rated higher and more global information covering all of college football should be rated higher. Perhaps, for example, a person should rate an article on it's currentness and globalness on a scale of 0 to 5 and add the two numbers and if it's 8-10 it should be top, 6-7 high, 4-5 mid, 2-3 low and 0-1 why does it exist? Thus, items about the current season would automatically get a 5 plus the globalness, (say a team page) would get a 1 or 2 so it would be a 6-7 and rated high. An item about a current player would be the same. An NFL player, if currently playing in the NFL would be a 4, if retired a 3 or 2 depending on how long ago. Let me try and sort this out with a chart:
- Current (0-5 points)
- Articles that cover more than this (team page?) should take the value when the most current info of the team. A current team, 5 points, a defunct team, whenever their last season was.
- This year or last year, 5 points
- A few years ago, 4 points
- A decade ago, 3 points
- A generation ago, 2 points
- General Historical Info, 1 point
- Globalness
- Covers all of college football, 5 points (BCS, NCAA)
- Covers a general event (Rose Bowl), 4 points
- Covers a general group (Conference), 3 points
- Covers a player, team, specific event, 1 points
- Bonus points for signifigance (up to 3 points?)
- More important items, must be generally agreed upon
- Joe Paterno
- More important items, must be generally agreed upon
Still seems fairly random. I guess it can't be an exact science. Mecu 15:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Importance ratings
- It certainly can't be an exact science but it is a start. I notice that Big Bertha has been tagged Low importance while Sooner Schooner has been tagged medium. My first thought was that they should both be the same level since they are each a tradition of a major college team. However, on reflection, I think the Sooner Schooner is a more famous symbol of OU than Big Bertha is of Texas. Hook 'em Horns and Bevo are both more famous and should probably be ranked higher. Johntex\talk 16:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've been doing nothing but rating for hours. I rated Big Bertha Low since it was a unique tradition. I almost gave it Mid since it's a special college football tradition, but since it's not the mascot it doesn't matter. One should think about it like this, I think: If someone knew nothing about college football, what would you tell them? What is more important? A mascot seems to be Mid, and Big Bertha seems Low. The more important players, coaches, schools, history, rivalries, bowls — the things that make college football college football should be higher. Special traditions like that are unique to college football, so it's a grey area. Besides, it's quite well developed (though that may be the exception to items like this since the {{UTTalk}} people are active) and doesn't really need us to take a big look at it. It's hard to classify everything into 4 categories without there being some dispute since there are so many shades of grey. If you want to change a rating class or importance by 1 level, I wouldn't have any problem with that. More than 1 level and there should be clear evidence for a reason for change or discussion is needed. The 1 level up or down should be only allowed once and if conflict arises, a discussion should occur. Mecu 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you, but not fully. For example, but I disagree about Hook 'em Horns. This is a major symbol of UT and is virtually synonymous with UT football. It is also used an insult and taunt by opposing teams like OU that don't have their own hand symbols. It is well known across college football. It is far more important to college football than the mascot of the "119th team". It is also far more important to college football than something that happened in one game, such as Fifth Down. I won't change the rating myself since I am a major contributor to the article. Also, as I have said over on the main project Talk page - I think this whole system can use some refinement. I know you have been putting a lot of work into these rankings, but I think major systems like this should be discussed and refined first, before someone spends a lot of time utilizing them. Johntex\talk 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with you. Popularity should increase importance. I re-read the guideline listed above the table which I'll quote here: 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 students or fans of college football. Thus, the key item should be popularity. So the BCS schools should be higher than all the others and all other divisions. NFL players/coaches increased in rating as well. I think in general I've been following this with a few exception where I'll read a stub on a coach and see they're listed in the hall of fame so I'll put them High instead of Mid (or Low) just because of that, which now seems wrong. Mecu 17:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I partially agree with you, but not fully. For example, but I disagree about Hook 'em Horns. This is a major symbol of UT and is virtually synonymous with UT football. It is also used an insult and taunt by opposing teams like OU that don't have their own hand symbols. It is well known across college football. It is far more important to college football than the mascot of the "119th team". It is also far more important to college football than something that happened in one game, such as Fifth Down. I won't change the rating myself since I am a major contributor to the article. Also, as I have said over on the main project Talk page - I think this whole system can use some refinement. I know you have been putting a lot of work into these rankings, but I think major systems like this should be discussed and refined first, before someone spends a lot of time utilizing them. Johntex\talk 17:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've been doing nothing but rating for hours. I rated Big Bertha Low since it was a unique tradition. I almost gave it Mid since it's a special college football tradition, but since it's not the mascot it doesn't matter. One should think about it like this, I think: If someone knew nothing about college football, what would you tell them? What is more important? A mascot seems to be Mid, and Big Bertha seems Low. The more important players, coaches, schools, history, rivalries, bowls — the things that make college football college football should be higher. Special traditions like that are unique to college football, so it's a grey area. Besides, it's quite well developed (though that may be the exception to items like this since the {{UTTalk}} people are active) and doesn't really need us to take a big look at it. It's hard to classify everything into 4 categories without there being some dispute since there are so many shades of grey. If you want to change a rating class or importance by 1 level, I wouldn't have any problem with that. More than 1 level and there should be clear evidence for a reason for change or discussion is needed. The 1 level up or down should be only allowed once and if conflict arises, a discussion should occur. Mecu 17:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think creators of the article or major contributors should rank the articles. Thoughts? CJC47 13:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think we all agree with that. Johntex\talk 14:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
- That is, I think, the best policy. Z4ns4tsu 14:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Some of the ratings are peculiar, the Miami Orange Bowl is rated high, while Ben Hill Griffin Stadium and Doak Campbell Stadium are low. Why would the stadium that competes with the Citrus Bowl as the biggest piece of junk in the Sunshine State be more important than the Swamp, which never has an attendence below 87,000 (where the Orange Bowl occasionally has crowds of less than 25,000) and is Kirk Herbstreit's favorite on-campus stadium, along with having the reputation being one of (if not the) most intimidating places to play and having existed nearly a decade longer than the Orange Bowl. I just don't get it.--Porsche997SBS 04:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Miami Orange Bowl hasn't been rated by WP:CFB, it's not even tagged as part of the WP:CFB. --MECU≈talk 05:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Awards at Top
There were several awards, like the Maxwell Award, that were rated at Top. I went ahead, was bold and changed them to low. I left the Heisman Trophy at Top. My question is whether or not those should be low. Bornagain4 22:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'd saw awards that are 2nd level (ie, not Heisman) should be High since they are both important, and cyclic in popularity so that it should receive enough attention. Someone who hears "so and so won the Maxwell Award" then wonders and searches for information on the Maxwell Award would want a suitably nice article written on it. --Mecu 22:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
- Deal, I'll switch it. Bornagain4 23:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Classification determinations
We had a discussion awhile back about how to classify certain articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#A new way of looking at things. I've taken those determinations and compiled a list below. Please review. Maybe this should be included on the main page for people to refer to when ranking articles.
|
--NMajdan•talk 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Athletic programs are not under the College football Wikiproject. MECU≈talk 19:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, some are tagged. Don't know which off the top of my head, but I added those fields after coming across them. I'll remove them as I see them.--NMajdan•talk 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Top 25 ambiguous
In the above scheme, I find this phrase to be ambiguous: "Articles on the current coach of a BCS/Top 25 team". In context it looks like it could be saying an all-time Top 25 team, but it could be referring to the current Top 25. I really want to see people like Chris Petersen get their due (because I think the stories of programs like that are interesting), so I'm hopeful it's the latter interpretation. Regardless, it should be clarified. Cheers, PhilipR 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I do believe it is the latter: It could be written: Articles on the current coach of a current BCS (ranking) team. Articles on the current coach of a current Top 25 ranked (AP or Coaches, not Harris) Team." --MECU≈talk 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] What's up?!
Why's it takin' so long to get any assessments done? Come on people. I think I'm the only one who's reiewed or commented the assessment page this MONTH! Let's get some work done people!!! --Crash Underride 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- There's no requirement to have someone else rate an article. While you may be biased since you heavily edited the article, you could make an attempt a rating, especially if you are familiar with the rating. It is not specific to WP:CFB and standardized across all projects. Lastly, most CFB editors (at least I) make assessments without the need to come to this page. With the low volume of work to be done here (at the page, there is tons to be done in rating), the page is probably not heavily watched. MECU≈talk 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
