Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject College football

Information
Project page	talk
College football Portal	talk
Participants	talk
2006 NCAA FBS Season	talk
2006-07 Bowl Games	talk
2006 Rankings	talk
Project category	talk
Master Team Table	talk
Team images	talk
Year Page Format	talk
Departments
Assessment	talk
•Worklist •Log
Collaboration of the Month	talk
Peer review	talk
Notability (proposed)	talk
Tools
Project banner	talk
Persondata	talk
WP:CFB Templates	talk
{{subst`:`CFBwelcome-project}}	talk
Photos on Commons
Userboxes
Project Userbox	talk
NCAA Teams	talk

edit · changes

Welcome to the assessment department of the College Football WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's college football articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

College football articles		Importance
College football articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	1			1		2
	A
	GA		1	5	8		14
	B	11	58	92	83	1	245
	Start	4	79	321	321	225	950
	Stub		58	270	728	403	1459
	Assessed	16	196	688	1141	629	2670
	Unassessed	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Total	16	196	688	1141	629	2670

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:College football articles by quality and Category:College football articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

1 Frequently asked questions
2 Instructions
3 Statistics
- 3.1 Monthly changes
4 Worklist and log

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the College football WikiProject?: Just add {{WikiProject College football}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated?: Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?: Any member of the College Football WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article?: This does not exist for this project yet. Perhaps you could join the project and create a peer review system?
What if I don't agree with a quality 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.
What if I don't agree with an importance rating?: If you believe an item is mis-classed or it's class has since changed, please list it in the Requesting an assessment with your reasons. Please see the importance scale below and make sure your claims follow the criteria listed.
Aren't the ratings subjective?: Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?: A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
Can I review my own article?: You may not rate your own articles. New articles should be added to the peer review section of assessment. Large changes to articles that may change the quality should be added to the Requesting an assessment section. Articles that may need a change in Importance status should be listed in the Importance review section.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the project coordinators directly.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject College football| class=??? | importance=???}} (These are currently the only options)

While assessing articles, please rate the class and importance with a capital letter. This will insure uniformity on the template.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class college football articles)
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class college football articles)
GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class college football articles)
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class college football articles)
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class college football articles)
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class college football articles)
NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article college football pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed college football articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance college football articles)
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance college football articles)
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance college football articles)
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance college football articles)

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

[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 editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible.	Supernova (as of February 2007)
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 "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. 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 good. 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, 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}}	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/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.	Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & 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

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, 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.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country, state or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

There was significant discussion on the project talk page early in the WikiProject on how to rank articles (you can view the discussion here). Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Assessment#Classification determinations for a table that attempts to consolidate the results of that discussion. The table may not cover all articles. In that case, a reviewer should refer to the discussion to determine if there was a vote on that type of article and what the possible options are. In most cases, the votes were split between one or two levels so the reviewer should use one of those at their discretion.

[edit] Requesting an 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. New articles do not need to be listed here unless they have gone unrated for more than 2 weeks. Please be sure to add new articles to the assessment table.

~~Colt McCoy~~ was rated early in the 2006 season. I think a re-assessment for both quality and importance is now in order. The article has been greatly expanded, including many more references. Also, the subject matter has grown in importance as a result of setting an NCAA freshman record and in-light of being named College Football News' Big 12 Player of the Year and the quarterback to their "All Freshman Team". Johntex\^talk 05:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- It is rated a B. I think that may be a little generous, as the page is poorly written in parts, a little homer-istic and without an encyclopedic tone, missing a stats section, full stat information, and infobox. Since he's only played 1 season, and will likely play at least 2 more, it seems a little unfocused to that fact and a lot of the details will probably be dropped over the next few seasons. That being said, it does have the bulk of information that's possible. If I could give it a start+, I'd be fine with that. Importance could be mid, though the criteria table doesn't cover this (likely because we didn't come up with an consensus solution). Mid may be acceptable since he broke a record and won several awards and will be around for another few years. But I'm perfectly fine with it remaining low (whereas hall of famers are mid, for comparison). --MECU≈talk 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thank you. The info box just got added. I will work on the prose problems and full stat information. Could you provide an example of "homer-istic" language, please? I am not sure I know what to fix there. I don't worry about the amount of detail. For now, the article is not too long. If he continues to do things worthy of inclusion as the years go on, then we can worry about dropping less important facts at that later time. Johntex\^talk 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"There was a lengthy delay, and Colt had to be carted off the field. As he left, he raised his left, which allowed the crowd to know that he was conscious. For several weeks it was unknown if he would be able to play in UT's bowl game." Basically, things only a Texas fan would care to read about. And any items that are written for a Texas fan. It should be written for everyone. I guess since it's just so detailed, it's more than I would expect for an article about a freshman RS QB so I guess I just got the whole feeling it was homer-istic. If I were to write this article, it would give his stats in a table and not for each game (almost does this), important facts like the 60yd TD as his second pass are okay though. I hope I've explained it so you get the general idea of what I mean. If not, I can try some more. --MECU≈talk 15:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Big Ten Conference- Rates start back in August, plenty of work has been done since then. Request re-evaluation and some comments on improvement.--Wizardman 00:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Chris Cagle (football) - has been revised grammatically, added info box, new links, subheads. Should be upgraded to Start level. Thanks. Aaron charles 18:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Removed stub notices and upgraded to Start class.↔NMajdan•talk 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance review section

If you believe an item is incorrectly classified in importance or its importance has changed, please feel free to list it below along with your justification.

Civil War (college football game) - Originally rated high, then changed to low? I'd say most rivalry games should be rated at least mid, let alone the oldest rivalry on the west coast and the 13th oldest in the nation. VegaDark 23:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
This will be either Low or Mid. Please see dicussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#A_new_way_of_looking_at_things. --MECU≈talk 16:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
~~Woody Hayes~~ Looking at the scale, maybe he should be ranked higher. He is included for more than historical reference. Rkevins82 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed to mid since he's a HOFer. If someone wants to consider him fundamental to knowing about college football, you can change him to High. But since he's dead and he era was in the 50's, I think the lower rating applies. Plus the article is already mostly written. MECU≈talk 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
~~College Football All-America Team~~ - Originally rated Top. I'd say it needs to be rated High along with the other major college football awards like the Heisman Trophy, Maxwell Award, and Bednarik Award.--NMajdan•talk 20:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed it. I origionally rated it early July before the full discussion, so this does seem appropriate. MECU≈talk 21:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
~~Calvin Johnson (football)~~ was missing the WP College football template, so I gave him one. However, I'm not sure how "important" he is. My estimate is that his article is at "Start"; correct me if I'm wrong. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Start is fine with me. Probably can't be much above that until he leaves college at least. --MECU≈talk 23:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed Dan McCarney since (1) he appeared to be misclassified, as the coach of a non-BCS non-Top 25 team; (2) he stepped down as coach anyway. PhilipR 01:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone want to review Tennessee Volunteers football and change the quality ranking? It has gone through a lot of changes, but most of it is my work, so its best that someone else do this. CJC47 16:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Add articles here!

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Monthly changes

All figures given for the *end* of each month
	July 2006		August 2006		September 2006		October 2006		November 2006		December 2006		January 2007
FA	0	0.00 %	1	0.09 %	1	0.08 %	1	0.08 %	1	0.07 %	1	0.06 %	1	0.05 %
A	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	1	0.05 %
GA	2	0.20 %	2	0.18 %	4	0.34 %	3	0.24 %	3	0.22 %	5	0.30 %	6	0.33 %
B	66	6.90 %	124	11.24 %	131	11.22 %	137	11.29 %	144	10.73 %	162	9.82 %	188	10.18 %
Start	123	12.87 %	280	25.39 %	321	27.48 %	327	26.93 %	362	26.97 %	481	29.15 %	592	32.07 %
Stub	121	12.66 %	256	23.21 %	319	27.31 %	344	28.34 %	431	32.12 %	610	36.97 %	705	38.19 %
Unassessed	644	67.36 %	440	39.89 %	392	33.56 %	402	33.11 %	401	29.88 %	391	23.70 %	353	19.12 %
Total	956		1,103		1,168		1,214		1,342		1,650		1,846

	February 2007		March 2007
FA	1	0.05 %
A	1	0.05 %
GA	9	0.43 %
B	212	10.17 %
Start	673	32.29 %
Stub	847	40.64 %
Unassessed	341	16.36 %
Total	2,084