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.
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):
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.
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.
|
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. under discussion |
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:
|
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. |
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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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 |
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
):
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 |
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 | 28 | ||||
GA | 3 | 5 | 12 | 29 | 3 | 4 | 56 | |
B | 15 | 31 | 71 | 102 | 39 | 87 | 345 | |
C | 25 | 76 | 289 | 595 | 282 | 375 | 1,642 | |
Start | 8 | 83 | 848 | 3,181 | 2 | 1,991 | 1,968 | 8,081 |
Stub | 2 | 10 | 252 | 4,462 | 3 | 5,755 | 2,085 | 12,569 |
List | 3 | 9 | 82 | 599 | 12 | 212 | 362 | 1,279 |
Category | 2 | 9 | 8 | 63,605 | 23,819 | 87,443 | ||
Disambig | 1 | 5 | 92 | 14 | 5 | 117 | ||
File | 1 | 1,330 | 45 | 1,376 | ||||
Portal | 238 | 238 | ||||||
Project | 1 | 39 | 10 | 50 | ||||
Redirect | 1 | 3 | 24 | 175 | 1,441 | 505 | 18 | 2,167 |
Template | 4 | 13 | 2,479 | 1,009 | 3,505 | |||
NA | 3 | 3 | ||||||
Assessed | 60 | 223 | 1,607 | 9,186 | 69,244 | 33,684 | 4,905 | 118,909 |
Unassessed | 11 | 7 | 1,543 | 1,222 | 2,783 | |||
Total | 60 | 223 | 1,607 | 9,197 | 69,251 | 35,227 | 6,127 | 121,692 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 123,534 | Ω = 5.44 |
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.
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.
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.
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):
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.
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.
|
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. under discussion |
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:
|
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. |
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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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 |
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
):
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 |
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 | 28 | ||||
GA | 3 | 5 | 12 | 29 | 3 | 4 | 56 | |
B | 15 | 31 | 71 | 102 | 39 | 87 | 345 | |
C | 25 | 76 | 289 | 595 | 282 | 375 | 1,642 | |
Start | 8 | 83 | 848 | 3,181 | 2 | 1,991 | 1,968 | 8,081 |
Stub | 2 | 10 | 252 | 4,462 | 3 | 5,755 | 2,085 | 12,569 |
List | 3 | 9 | 82 | 599 | 12 | 212 | 362 | 1,279 |
Category | 2 | 9 | 8 | 63,605 | 23,819 | 87,443 | ||
Disambig | 1 | 5 | 92 | 14 | 5 | 117 | ||
File | 1 | 1,330 | 45 | 1,376 | ||||
Portal | 238 | 238 | ||||||
Project | 1 | 39 | 10 | 50 | ||||
Redirect | 1 | 3 | 24 | 175 | 1,441 | 505 | 18 | 2,167 |
Template | 4 | 13 | 2,479 | 1,009 | 3,505 | |||
NA | 3 | 3 | ||||||
Assessed | 60 | 223 | 1,607 | 9,186 | 69,244 | 33,684 | 4,905 | 118,909 |
Unassessed | 11 | 7 | 1,543 | 1,222 | 2,783 | |||
Total | 60 | 223 | 1,607 | 9,197 | 69,251 | 35,227 | 6,127 | 121,692 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 123,534 | Ω = 5.44 |
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.
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.