Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on Sports, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's sports 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 {{WikiProject Sports}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Sports articles by quality and Category:Sports articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

FAQ

[edit]
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 {{WikiProject Sports}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Sports}} 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 Sports 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.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Sports}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Sports|class=???|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter. Please note that you must type them exactly as below as they are case-sensitive:

If a rating is not assigned, the article will be filed in Category:Unassessed sports articles. The class should be assigned according to the grading scheme. A list of Unassessed and In dispute articles can be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Assessment.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter. Please note that you must type them exactly as below as they are case-sensitive:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed sports articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance sports articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Quality scale

[edit]
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A 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
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. 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 literary movements

Importance scale

[edit]

The |importance=value parameter records the project's priority assessment rating currently assigned to the article. When this banner appears on the talk page of a non-article, no class value need be applied.

On an aritcle talk page, if the value is unassigned, an invalid value is given, or the class parameter is set to "NA", the parameter defaults to "unassigned" and the template places the talkpage into Category:Unknown-importance sports articles.

Valid values for this parameter, their associated meanings and their categories are given in the table below. Values should be typed as shown (e.g. |importance=Mid):

Importance parameter values (Category:sports articles by importance)
Value Meaning Category
Top Topics that are among the most important, defining articles on sports. Examples include the main article on sports, vital equipment, international governing bodies and leagues/tours/associations, game rules, current world championships (overview article), this year's article on the world championships, current pro world champions. Top-importance articles are often selected for Wikipedia CD/DVD release. If the project has more than a dozen or so Top-importance articles, consider moving some to High-importance. Top-importance sports articles.
High Topics that are of certain but not crucial importance in sports. Examples include former pro world champions, pro world championship top-16 contenders, current amateur world champions, major international events (overview articles), high-profile dedicated venues, game variants, detailed stand-alone articles on aspects of sports. High-importance sports articles
Mid Articles that are reasonably important in sports. Examples include national-class players/teams below world championship level, major national events (overview articles). Mid-importance sports articles
Low Article of limited importance in sports. Examples include previous years' annual event articles, and marginally notable players/teams, venues, events, etc. Media (TV shows, films, books, etc.) relating to sports usually also fall into this assessment level (for this project - a film, etc., project might rate the article higher). Low-importance sports articles


Statistics

[edit]

Current status

[edit]
Sports articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 3 4 1 2 10
FL 12 15 1 1 29
A 1 1
GA 3 5 12 30 6 4 60
B 16 34 75 113 69 91 398
C 24 72 288 585 1 430 384 1,784
Start 7 84 847 3,161 4 2,701 1,959 8,763
Stub 2 8 243 4,348 4 6,401 1,990 12,996
List 3 9 78 599 12 301 407 1,409
Category 2 9 8 63,225 32,375 95,619
Disambig 1 5 90 20 5 121
File 1 1,299 79 1,379
Portal 238 238
Project 1 39 12 52
Redirect 1 4 24 178 1,566 863 27 2,663
Template 4 13 2,461 2,435 4,913
NA 2 8 8 1 19
Assessed 59 222 1,596 9,060 68,947 45,701 4,869 130,454
Unassessed 8 7 1,817 1,152 2,984
Total 59 222 1,596 9,068 68,954 47,518 6,021 133,438
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 130,245 Ω = 5.42


Historical counts

[edit]

Monthly changes

[edit]

Requests for assessment

[edit]

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. Philadelphian cricket team is now up for Peer Review here. An assessment is also needed by project sports, so if anyone is willing to do that or comment on the PR, that would be great.--Eva bd 13:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tom Hawkins is up for Peer Review in order to gain GA class.Boomtish 08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kelly pool: Barring any objections, I'm going to assess this as an A-class article. It has informally failed (withdrawn) GA due to lack of a well-developed history section, but as is adequately explained at Talk:Kelly pool there simply is no more written history in third-party sources on which to draw. Like many games and sports its actual origin is simply lost to time. In my opinion (and I know the source material about as well as the principal editor of the article) this article is literally about as good as it can possibly be, barring the future discovery of some long-lost trove of historical billiards lore. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. History of the Denver Broncos: I have made extensive changes and would like the start-class reassessed as well as suggestions for improvement. Thank You---Johnelwayrules (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. New Zealand Indoor Bowls I have created this article and would like a total review please-- as soon as possible :)Nzcit (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Craig Breslow I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. John Grabow I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Brian Horwitz I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Ian Kinsler I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Michael Koplove I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Adam Stern I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Josh Whitesell I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Jason Hirsh I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Adam Greenberg I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Scott Schoeneweis I think this is now better than "C."--Ethelh (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  16. National Track & Field Hall of Fame I created this article and would like an assesment. Thanks --dashiellx (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sport in Hamburg not new, but not rated by project sports yet. Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  18. unicycle hockey Please would you review and add to the the wikiproject. Tullis (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. TAFISA I originally split this article from ethnosport and recently overhauled it, adding more references and linking to here from TAFISA participants. Requesting assessment. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Australia at the World Championships in Athletics | Not new but not assessed by this project thanks - NickGibson3900 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Micheen Thornycroft - needs assessment - Kuda188 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  22. National Junior College Athletic Association In need of importance assesment User:Spaceboy900 (User talk:Spaceboy900) 23:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Penn State Nittany Lions women's soccer I did a massive overhaul of this page, needing a new assessment. Thanks, NoahRiffe (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Log

[edit]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sports/Assessment&oldid=1142556776"