Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Chalk stub.pngWrench.svg
Main • Talk
WikiProject Cue sportsWikiProject Snooker
Article – Portal – Category – Alerts – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – Style – To-do – Commons files
Recent talkRecent changes (Non-article)New articles
Featured contentGood articlesHot articles
DYKsITNsTemplates & infoboxesParticipants

Welcome to the Assessment Department of WikiProject Cue sports (WP:CUE for short). This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's cue sports articles (including snooker; while that sport has its own WikiProject, it has no assessment department.) While much of the work is done in conjunction with the Wikipedia 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.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Cue sports project}} article talk page banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Cue sports articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Please note that the ratings are similar to, but independent of and in some details different than those used by other WikiProjects (on sports, biography, national history, film, novels, and so on). Other WikiProjects may rate the same article, and their ratings may not agree with ours or with each other, because each has a different set of criteria. In particular, WP:CUE may often consider a player biographical article to remain at a lower rating than WikiProject Biography (WP:BIO) might, because our standards for article completion are much higher. From a WP:BIO standpoint, an article may seem "complete" if it is highly informative to an average reader, while from a WP:CUE point of view, it might remain woefully incomplete if missing substantial information on tournament standings, records, and other statistics, which a sports fan reader may be seeking. For this reason, it is possible in an extreme case for an article to be rated overall as a Featured Article in Wikipedia, but not be recognized as one by this WikiProject, if important material is demonstrably missing or incorrect. Also, the priority levels assigned by WP:CUE will often differ radically from those of WP:BIO.

Frequently asked questions[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 {{Cue sports project}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else (though it is appreciated if you put {{DEFAULTSORT:Article name}} at the very top of the talk page, or {{DEFAULTSORT:Familyname, Given Names}} in the case of biographies.; if you forget that part someone else will add it in later).
3. Someone put a {{Cue sports project}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within this project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the limited number of articles we deal with, we rarely make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. Sometimes the connection may yet to be documented in the article; please ask at the Project talk page rather than simply removing the template.
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Cue sports is free to add — or change — the rating of an article within the project's scope. 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 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 the Featured Article and Good Article levels (and consequently A-class to an extent, as it depends on GA-class) have associated formal review processes that need be followed, and are not under the control of this project.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Certainly. 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, though existing article talk page commentary or cleaup tags in the article may already document any problems the article has. 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?
Participants in this project's Peer Review Department, or those of the Wikipedia-wide Peer Review process, can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review to the project first, to reduce load on WP Peer Review, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page. Asking on the article's own talk page is unlikely to produce timely results.
9. What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the "Requests for assessment" section below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again, or use the project's Assessment Dept. talk page to discuss the matter. Please note that some of the available levels have associated formal review processes that need be followed by assessors, as they are not subject to this project's control.
10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
To an extent they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise. The ratings do have some objective criteria. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to bring it up at the Wikipedia Version 1.0 project.
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.


An article's assessment is generated from the class and priority parameters in the {{Cue sports project}} banner on its talk page (please see Template:Cue sports project for documentation on how to use the specific fields):

For non-biography cue sports:

{{Cue sports project

For biographies of players and non-player cue sports personalities:

{{Cue sports project

(Emphasis added to highlight additional line.)

Cue sports biographical articles should also have the similar but different {{WPBiography}} template added to them, below the {{Cue sports project}} one. The WPBiography template should make use of the "living" parameter, but not make use of the needs-infobox parameter (the cue sports bio infoboxes are not the same as the default biography ones.)

The following values may be used for the class parameter, and should be assigned according to the quality scale below:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed cue sports articles.

[*] Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status. [return]

The following values may be used for the priority parameter, and should be assigned according to the priority scale below:

Articles for which a valid priority is not provided are listed in Category:Priority Unassessed cue sports articles.

The NA value is not used if an article's class is set to NA.

The template also has a core=yes parameter for the most vital articles only, as selected by the WikiProject Cue sports Assessment Department. No article should be flagged as "core" without being discussed on the Assessment talk page here. Articles with this flag are added to Category:Class Core cue sports articles, in addition to whatever other class they are assigned.

Quality scale[edit]

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria & process Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured Article" status after community review and often peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Nine-ball,
Walter Lindrum ??
Probably best candidates.
A-Class article A
Reserved for articles that have received A-Class status after review by the project. Such an article could at least be considered for Featured Article status, and is expected to largely meet the Featured Article criteria, and must be comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written; however, it may require some further copyediting. Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. 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 the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. No editors involved in the writing of an article should self-assess their article at this level. The best venue for achieving this class is to request a WP:CUE Peer Review, and if warranted a WP-wide Peer Review). Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. 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. Carom billiards,
Irving Crane
Reserved for articles that meet the Good Article criteria, and have already received Good Article status through the G.A. nomination process. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that could potentially succeed Featured Article candidancy should be considered for A-Class status, but being an official Good article is not necessarily 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. Snooker,
George Balabushka,
Steve Davis
Has quite well-developed content, preferably better than as described in "Start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has non-major gaps or missing elements, and may need some minor editing for English language usage, clarity, or balance, or may contain minor levels of policy problems such as lingering POV issues or a few non-central facts that remain unsourced. With NPOV, a well written B-class generally corresponds 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 rated B- or Start-class articles. To acheive B-class status the article should meet the following 5 criteria:
  1. It is reliably sourced, and all major points are appropriately cited (i.e., providing one or more sources at the end, without linking them to specific facts in the article, is usually insufficient).
  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 sections of well-developed content.
  4. It is free from major grammatical errors, contradictions or blatant irrelevancies.
  5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, and/or diagrams.

Non-members of the project who have read and understand these assessement guidelines are encouraged to rate articles as B-class or lower by themselves.

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 the policy errors. May still need resolution of one or more cleanup tags, and may contain non-encyclopedic information that needs to be trimmed. Five-pins,
Jean Balukas,
Efren Reyes
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack key elements of a great article. For example an article on a particular player might cover recent stats and personality well, but lack a full career overview, or an article about a game might cover the rules but have little information about history, demographics, organizations, tournaments, etc. Must not have unquestioned copyright issues. Must have elements of gathered, sourced materials, including both of the following:
  • A section that rather fully treats an element of the topic, and
  • Multiple additional subsections at least partially developed (indicating material that could be added to complete the article).
  • If a biography, must also have an appropriate infobox.

If the topic is simple, only the following three needs might necessarily apply:

  • A particularly useful picture, graphic, chart, list or table; and
  • Multiple wikilinks that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • More than one cited source.

May need more than minor editing for English language usage, clarity and balance of content, and may contain other major policy problems such as NPOV|noticeable bias, dubious claims, material inappropriate for a bio of a living person, or numerous [[WP:V|unsourced facts}}.

As with B-class, the project encourages any editor to rate articles as Starts, but please note that WP:CUE criteria for "Start" status are significantly more stringent that those of WP:BIO and many other more general wikiprojects.

Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but many will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere, especially if the article reads more like a magazine piece than an encyclopedia entry. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article may often need one or more cleanup tags. Three-ball,
Billiard Congress of America,
Alex Pagulayan,
Ding Junhui
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to even B-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is questionably relevant, unsourced and subjective, or incomprehensible. This article often isn't developed enough for practical application of cleanup tags: it still needs to be built. However, it may already have such tags if it exhibits serious POV problems. As with Start and B-class, the project encourages any editor to rate articles as Stubs, but please note that in WP:CUE that this rating is substantially broader than it is in WP:BIO and some other WikiProjects.

Note: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Even a stub article existing in Wikipedia for very long already has a passing grade, since it has to pass notability criteria. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need substantial expanding and improvement to B-class or better.

May be useless to a reader even passingly familiar with the subject. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the subject means or who the subject is. Often not much more than a brief, informed dictionary definition or three-sentence summary of a subject, but may also consist of substantial but disarrayed information, allegedly substantial but totally unverified information, or verified but very incomplete information, even in a subtopic (e.g. just the last two years of a player's stats). A common cause of stub classification, and one that puts an article in danger of speedy deletion, is a lack of multiple. independent, reliable sources. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Bank pool,
World Eight-ball Pool Federation,
Jeanette Lee,
Jacob Schaefer Jr.
The article does not exist and needs to be created.    

Priority scale[edit]

Priority must be regarded as a relative term. As priority values are applied within this project, they only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to any work groups, task forces or sub-projects (e.g. WikiProject Snooker) that the article falls under. An article judged to be "Top priority" in one context may be only "Mid priority" in another project. In particular, WP:BIO will classify the vast majority of cue sports (and all sports, for that matter) bios as Low priority, because they are being compared with everyone else in the world, including national statespeople, Nobel laureate scientists, etc. This of course is insufficient classification within a particular field, and also does not help determine which articles within this field rise to the "cream of the crop" and receive higher priority levels by more general criteria such as those of WP:BIO. That is where the WP:CUE ratings come in.

The criteria used for rating article priority 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 cue sports fan reader (or perhaps even average sports fan reader) of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). By contrast, for example WP:BIO's criteria address the average reader, period, regardless of their topical interest level.

So, WP:CUE priority levels are not connected in any way to those used by WP:BIO or other WikiProjects, nor to the Wikipedia:Core biographies or Wikipedia 1.0 projects. They exist to prioritize this WikiProject." To the extent this happens efficiently and accurately, WP:CUE priority levels assist the rating systems of other (and especially broader) projects by ensuring that the articles are good from the point of view of this field. It is much more difficult for WP:BIO, etc., to determine the relative importance of an article subject much less it's actual completion, and thus rate it properly, without the in-field expertise of WP:CUE doing the underlying groundwork.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top High probability that non-historians and non-sports-fans would look this up. Limited to the perhaps the top 25 biography articles, the main article about signficant games and classes of games, cue-sports related media broadly recognized as classics, the most influential international organizations in the field, and global competitive events in major sports. For biographies, the subject:
  • must have had a large impact outside of their main discipline, been pre-eminent in multiple disciplines, effectively created a major discipline
  • have have had influence across multiple generations, and in the majority of the developed world
  • must not simply be broadly famous, without having have met the above criteria

(For example, Jacob Schaefer Sr. was a living legend is his time and one of the first BCA Hall of Fame inductees; his skill was so extreme that very challenging class of games known as balkline billiards were largely invented to level (unsuccessfully) the playing field against him.) At this time, no non-player personalities qualify for Top priority.

No member should give this rating to any article without first getting consensus from the other WP:CUE Assessment Department participants.

Cue sport,
Carom Billiards,
The Hustler,
World Pool-Billiard Association,
Billiard balls,
Jacob Schaefer Sr.
Joe Davis
High Main articles on significant games that are not the subject of large-scale global competition; articles on cue sports equipment that require depth and detail; cue-sports major organizations and tournaments; related media of highly notable, influential nature. Biographies: Must have had a large impact in their main discipline, over a very substantial career, and internationally. At this time, only one non-player personality qualifies for High priority (world-renowned cuemaker George Balabushka). One-pocket,
Balkline and straight rail,
Billiard ball,
International Pool Tour,
The Color of Money,
Billiards Digest mag.,
Willie Hoppe,
George Balabushka,
Efren Reyes,
Raymond Ceulemans,
Fred Davis,
Sang Lee
Mid Main articles on games of limited international competition, widespread informal play, or historical importance; articles on basic equipment; cue sports organizations of limited by still important scope; qualifying tournaments and invitationals; more-than-just-notable related media. Biographies: Must demonstrate important in their discipline, such as numerous world championships or other high level of influence and notoriety, at least at a multi-national level (e.g. throughout Europe or Asia), and in a discipline subject to broad international competition. Players must be professionals to qualify as Mid priority. The vast majority of currently and semi-recently popular pool and snooker pros fall into this category; please do not mark them "High" just because they are your favorite. A handful of non-player personalities also belong in this classification. Five-pins,
Artistic billiards,
Cushion caroms,
Billiard Congress of America,
WPA Asian Nine-ball Tour,
Poolhall Junkies,
Pool & Billiard mag.,
Ewa Mataya Laurance,
Alex Pagulayan,
Ronnie O'Sullivan,
Jeanette Lee,
Robert Byrne,
Michaela Tabb
Low Main articles on obscure games or those of largely regional interest; sub-articles about aspects of games; lists of players, nicknames, etc.; articles on organizations of strictly regional scope or limited authoritativeness; regional or minor events; related media of interest but dubious or regional importance. Biographies: Subject is notable in their main discipline at least at a national level. The vast majority of cue sports professionals - i.e. all who are (or were, during the peak of their career) not regularly in the top 10 in at least one sport. Most cue sports commentators, writers and other non-player personalities also belong in this classification. Novuss,
Russian Pyramid,
Bumper pool,
Snooker rules,
List of World Snooker Champions,
American Pool-players Association
Pool TV, Marlon Manalo,
Jasmin Ouschan,
Ding Junhui,
Phil Capelle,
Mitch Laurance

Requests for assessment[edit]

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get detailed feedback about the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Seeking an A-class rating? We suggest you submit it for a Peer Review to allow us more time to respond and review. Be sure to first read what qualifies as an A rating before doing so though.

Generally, articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B', unless they are already rated as 'GA' by Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates.

PS: Please note that, especially for the lower levels of grading, this project's standards are more stringent than those of many other projects. Please do not be offended if an article is rated "Stub" by this project but "Start" by another, such as WikiProject Biography. The scales are not quite the same.

Add requests to the bottom of this list.

  1. SDFOWdfksdfoew Done. - sklfsadfdsf 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  2. Aiewiododfy - blah blah blah asdfsdfadsf 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment log[edit]

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log


The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.