Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Golf

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Grovermj (talk | contribs) at 07:50, 5 March 2009 (→‎Progressive Statistics: added december). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject on Golf
Main pages(edit · changes)
Main project talk
Core Articles talk
Requested Golf articles talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Other
Featured/Good Articles
Categories
Templates
Popular pages
Articles for Deletion

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Golf! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Biography 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 program,

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Wikiproject Golf}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Golf articles by quality and Category:Golf articles by importance.

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 {{Wikiproject Golf}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{Wikiproject Golf}} 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 Golf 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
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. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
9. 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!
10. 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

Quality

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Wikiproject Golf}}. See the template page for more detailed instructions.

{{Wikiproject Golf| ... | class=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used:

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

Importance

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{Wikiproject Golf}}. See the template page for more detailed instructions.

{{Wikiproject Golf| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Golf articles.

Quality Scale

Label Criteria Formal process Example
FA
{{FA-Class}} 		Reserved for articles that meet the featured article criteria and have received featured article status after community review. Featured article candidates List of featured articles
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. May be assigned by any reviewer, but, generally, articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B', unless they are already rated as 'GA' by Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates. Tiger Woods (as of January 2008)
GA
{{GA-Class}} 		Reserved for articles that meet the good article criteria and have received good article status. Good article nominations Jack Nicklaus (as of January 2008)
B
{{B-Class}} 		The article meets the following five criteria:
  1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited.
  2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies.
  3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content.
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors.
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams.
 May be assigned by any reviewer Golf (as of January 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; it 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
 May be assigned by any reviewer Augusta National Golf Club (as of January 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. May be assigned by any reviewer David Leadbetter (as of April 2007)

Importance Scale

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top High probability that non-Golfers would look this up. Tiger Woods
High An important subject in the field of golf, but not to the extent of a top-class importance article. Ernie Els
Mid Non-golf enthusiasts may vaguely know about this subject. Mark O'Meara
Low Probably only golf enthusiasts would look up this topic. 1990 Solheim Cup

Statistics

Golf articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 1 2
FL 8 1 9
A 1 1
GA 2 12 14
B 27 11 28 67 133
C 27 16 76 252 371
Start 2 69 456 6,545 7,072
Stub 90 4,511 2 4,603
List 2 18 19 163 202
Category 6 2,653 2,659
Disambig 12 12
File 205 205
Project 32 32
Redirect 357 357
Template 455 455
Other 20 20
Assessed 61 122 670 11,558 3,734 2 16,147
Total 61 122 670 11,558 3,734 2 16,147
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 64,812 Ω = 5.32

Progressive Statistics

All figures given for the end of each month
April, 2007 May, 2007 June, 2007 July, 2007 August, 2007 September, 2007 October, 2007
FA 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %
A 1 0.1 % 1 0.1 % 1 0.1 % 1 0.1 % 1 0.1 % 1 0.1 % 1 0.1 %
GA 2 0.1 % 3 0.2 % 3 0.2 % 3 0.2 % 3 0.2 % 3 0.2 % 3 0.2 %
B 11 0.8 % 10 0.7 % 12 0.8 % 13 0.8 % 13 0.8 % 16 0.9 % 17 1.0 %
Start 42 2.9 % 50 3.4 % 66 4.4 % 81 5.1 % 87 5.3 % 88 5.2 % 89 5.0 %
Stub 101 7 % 104 7.2 % 124 8.2 % 161 10.1 % 179 10.9 % 179 10.5 % 263 14.9 %
Unassessed 1,271 89 % 1,282 88.4 % 1,302 86.3 % 1,340 83.8 % 1,364 82.8 % 1,417 83.2 % 1,395 78.9 %
Total 1,428 1,450 1,508 1,599 1,647 1,704 1,768
November, 2007 December, 2007 January, 2008 February, 2008 March, 2008 April, 2008 May, 2008
FA 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 %
FL 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 %
A 1 0.1 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 2 0.1 % 2 0.1 %
GA 3 0.2 % 3 0.1 % 3 0.1 % 3 0.1 % 3 0.1 % 2 0.1 % 2 0.1 %
B 29 1.5 % 37 1.7 % 41 1.2 % 42 1.3 % 43 1.3 % 44 1.3 % 44 1.3 %
Start 377 19.6 % 735 34.5 % 912 27.3 % 915 27.3 % 916 27.0 % 916 27.0 % 923 27.2 %
Stub 673 34.9 % 1,132 53.2 % 1,442 43.2 % 1,458 43.5 % 1,490 44.0 % 1,495 44.1 % 1,497 44.1 %
List - 0 % - 0 % - 0 % - 0 % 45 1.3 % 44 1.3 % 45 1.3 %
Unassessed 843 43.7 % 189 8.9 % 897 26.9 % 889 26.5 % 888 26.2 % 886 26.1 % 880 25.9 %
Total 1,927 2,129 3,340 3,353 3,387 3,391 3,395
June, 2008 July, 2008 August, 2008 September, 2008 October, 2008 November, 2008 December, 2008
FA 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 %
FL 1 0 % 2 0.1 % 2 0.1 % 2 0.1 % 3 0.1 % 5 0.1 % 5 0.1 %
A 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 %
GA 3 0.1 % 3 0.1 % 4 0.1 % 4 0.1 % 4 0.1 % 4 0.1 % 5 0.1 %
B 46 1.3 % 46 1.3 % 46 1.3 % 47 1.3 % 48 1.3 % 49 1.3 % 48 1.3 %
C - 0 % 1 0 % 1 0 % 2 0.1 % 3 0.1 % 7 0.2 % 8 0.2 %
Start 922 26.5 % 925 26.5 % 925 26.4 % 928 25.4 % 927 25.2 % 932 25.3 % 935 25.3 %
Stub 1,570 45.1 % 1,570 45.0 % 1,571 44.9 % 1,574 43.1 % 1,573 42.8 % 1,707 46.3 % 1,729 46.8 %
List 45 1.3 % 45 1.3 % 45 1.3 % 46 1.3 % 45 1.2 % 43 1.2 % 43 1.2 %
Unassessed 891 25.6 % 897 25.7 % 903 25.8 % 1,051 28.7 % 1,073 29.2 % 939 25.5 % 923 25.0 %
Total 3,480 3,491 3,499 3,656 3,678 3,688 3,698

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Golf/Assessment&oldid=275122622"