Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This forum provides additional guidelines for assessing the quality and importance of Wikipedia's contract bridge related articles.

Contents

While the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project to aid in recognizing excellence and identifying topics in need of further work. Ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPCB}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of:

and summarized automatically in the table at right. Clicking on a number in the table provides a listing of the articles included in that count; empty categories are simply omitted from the table.

Update table

The table's data is automatically regenerated every three days and so there will be a lag between more recent article updates and the table's counts.

Run the update bot now.

Quality assessments[edit]

Quality classifications[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated by adding the class parameter and its value to the {{WPCB}} banner on the article's talk page, i.e. {{WPCB|class=value}}. To specify an assessed class, the values in the first column of the following table are substituted for value to assign that quality rating to the article. For example, {{WPCB|class=B}} places the article in Category:B-Class Contract bridge articles.

If no class parameter value is added (either as {{WPCB}} or {{WPCB|class=}}), class=??? is assigned by default and places the article in the Category:Unassessed Contract bridge articles.

Class parameters for Category, Project and Template articles are assigned by default by the {{WPCB}} banner on the basis of the prefix to the article name, and so their parameter values need not be (but can be) explicitly added to the {{WPCB}} banner.

Class
Value
Class
Title
Article is added to... Class
Symbol
Main articles:
FA Featured articles Category:FA-Class Contract bridge articles Featured article FA 
A Class A Articles Category:A-Class Contract bridge articles A-Class article A 
GA Good articles Category:GA-Class Contract bridge articles  GA 
B Class B articles Category:B-Class Contract bridge articles B-Class article B 
C Class C articles Category:C-Class Contract bridge articles C-Class article C 
Start Start-class articles Category:Start-Class Contract bridge articles Start-Class article Start 
Stub Stub-class articles Category:Stub-Class Contract bridge articles Stub-Class article Stub 
List class articles:
FL Featured list-class articles Category:FL-Class Contract bridge articles Featured list FL 
List List-class articles Category:List-Class Contract bridge articles  List 
Administrative articles:
Category Category-class articles Category:Category-Class Contract bridge articles Category page Category 
Project Project-class articles Category:Project-Class Contract bridge articles  Project 
Template Template-class articles Category:Template-Class Contract bridge articles  Template 
Redirect Redirect-class articles Category:Redirect-Class Contract bridge articles Redirect page Redirect 
NA Not Applicable-class articles Category:NA-Class Contract bridge articles  NA 
??? Unassessed-class articles Category:Unassessed Contract bridge articles  ??? 

Quality grading scheme[edit]

The following table is generic and should be customized to suit contract bridge articles.

For a discussion on the grading scheme being developed for notable bridge people, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge/Notable people criteria

Grading Scheme

Importance assessments[edit]

Importance classifications[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WPCB}} project banner on its talk page: {{WPCB| ... | importance=??? | ...}}. The values in the first column of the following table may be substituted for ??? to assign that importance rating to the article. See Category:Contract bridge articles by importance for a summary of article membership counts in each of the importance classifications.

Importance
Parameter
Importance
Title
Article is added to... Importance
Symbol
Top Top importance Category:Top-importance Contract bridge articles  Top 
High High importance Category:High-importance Contract bridge articles  High 
Mid Middle importance Category:Mid-importance Contract bridge articles  Mid 
Low Low importance Category:Low-importance Contract bridge articles  Low 
??? Unknown importance Category:Unknown-importance Contract bridge articles  ??? 
NA Not Applicable importance Category:NA-importance Contract bridge articles  NA 

Importance grading scheme[edit]

The following is a customized grading schemes. It requires further refinement and examples articles.

WikiProject article importance scheme


Draft for Contract Bridge Articles
Importance Criteria Inclusion Examples Exclusion Examples
In a broad generalization, it is proposed that we corrupt the Pareto principle so that articles of top and high importance constitute the 20% of all bridge articles that would sufficiently enlighten 80% of the readers. Assuming a mature level of say 750 contract bridge articles (there are about 650 as of January 2013), it suggests that no more than about 150 should be in the top two importance categories; say 50 and 100 in top and high respectively. Admitedly these are crude metrics but at least are reference points to be debated. The point is that assessing articles in the top and high categories requires some restraint lest the emphasis they imply becomes meaningless.
Top Core topics about contract bridge. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main Contract bridge article, vital for a basic understanding of bridge or extremely notable to people outside the game. Topics of interest to an international audience. This category should be limited.

Inclusion criteria: Beginner/newcomer skill level introduction to contract bridge in general and on bidding, card play and scoring.

Exclusion criteria: Articles on specific bridge conventions except those in almost universal use. All articles on people, championships, governing bodies and books and magazines.

Rubber bridge, Duplicate bridge, Chicago, Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Bidding system, Bridge scoring, Bridge conventions Splinter bid
High Topics that are very notable within contract bridge, and not unheard of outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia.

Inclusion criteria: Topics essential for someone who knows the basics of contract bridge at the beginner or intermediate level and who aspires to advanced or higher levels of understanding. Common card play techniques. Summaries of popularly used bidding systems. The most notable people in bridge - usually players and/or writers recognized internationally as world class - the most significant of those in a bridge Hall of Fame, but rarely administrators. People who, in their lifetime have achieved top 10 ranking by the World Bridge Federation. Books that are deemed classics. World championships and the most notable zonal, national and transnational competitions.

Exclusion criteria: Topics on less frequently used or obsolete bidding systems and conventions. Rarely encounterd card play situations or techniques or topics at a deeper and more complex level of detail. Articles on bridge governing bodies. All local and regional championships, national championships of lesser note. People who may be in a bridge Hall of Fame but are not recognized internationally as world class.

Acol, Simple squeeze, Ely Culbertson Little Major, Stepping-stone squeeze, Nick Nickell
It may seem paradoxical to an editor who is an avid bridge enthusiast that the more complex a bridge topic is, the more likely it requires a foundation of knowledge of the game to be able to absorb it and the more likely it is of greater interest and importance to an advancing or expert player and of lesser interest or importance to a non-player, beginner or intermediate level player who constitute the majority of encyclopedia readership. A true enthusiast buys a bridge book and does not rely on an encyclopedia!
Mid Topics that are reasonably notable on a national level within contract bridge without necessarily being famous or very notable internationally. Conventions that are used by a significant minority of players or by a high-importance pair. Card play techniques that are occasionally encountered. People who are in a bridge Hall of Fame (or its deemed equivalent status) and are recognized nationally but are not recognized as notable world class players or writers. People who are recognized internationally as notable adminstrators. Serious 3NT, Fantunes
Low Topics of mostly local interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial topics. Conventions that are not common anywhere. Card play techniques that are rare outside of composed positions. People who are notable within a national bridge community but are not in a bridge Hall of Fame or its deemed equivalent status. Hexagon squeeze, EHAA
??? Topic has not been assessed
NA Assessment is not applicable, not required Category, Templates, Project

Application[edit]

After assessing an article's quality and/or importance, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Contract bridge articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

Requesting an assessment[edit]

If you or others have made significant changes to an article since its last assessment and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please post your request at the talk page of the article and also list it below. The details of all assessment activity for an article belong with its talk pages. The list below is simply a secondary means to alert interested editors who may otherwise not be watching or visiting the page in question.

Article What has changed? Requestor Date Reassessed
(Y/N)
enter name of article enter your rationale for requesting a reassessment; in quality or importaance or both? who are you? date of request Y/N

Assessment log[edit]

Contract bridge articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

February 3, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

February 2, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

February 1, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

January 30, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

January 29, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

January 28, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Noel Mobbs (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

January 27, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 26, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 25, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 24, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 22, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 21, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 20, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 19, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 18, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 17, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 16, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 15, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 13, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 12, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 11, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 10, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 9, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 8, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 7, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 6, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Sandra Landy (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

January 5, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 4, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 3, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 2, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

January 1, 2017[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

December 31, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

December 30, 2016[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

November 23, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • Trump (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was High-Class (rev · t).

November 21, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 20, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 19, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 18, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 17, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 15, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 14, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 13, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 12, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 11, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 10, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 9, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 8, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

November 7, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 6, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 5, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 4, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 3, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 2, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

November 1, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 31, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 30, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 29, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Edward Hymes (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

October 28, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 27, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 26, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

October 25, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 24, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 23, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 22, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

October 21, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 20, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 19, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 18, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 17, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 16, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 15, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 14, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • CS System (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Low-Class (rev · t).

October 13, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 12, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 11, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 10, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 9, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

October 8, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

October 7, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 6, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 5, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 4, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 3, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

October 2, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

October 1, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 30, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 29, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 28, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 27, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 26, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 25, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Alvin Landy (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

Removed[edit]

September 24, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 23, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 22, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 21, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 20, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 19, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 18, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 17, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 16, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 14, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 13, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 12, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 11, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 10, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 9, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 8, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 7, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 6, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 5, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 4, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 3, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 2, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 1, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 30, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 29, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 28, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 27, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 26, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Kamikaze 1NT (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Simple squeeze (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to High-Class (rev · t).
  • Vienna coup (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).
  • Project:WikiProject Contract bridge/Archive 2011 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Template-Class to Project-Class (rev · t).

August 25, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 24, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 23, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 22, 2016[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

References[edit]

Endnotes[edit]

See also[edit]