Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment

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

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on Football, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's football (soccer) 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 Football}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Football articles by quality and Category:Football articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.


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 Football}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Football}} 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 football 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.
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. Where can I get more comments about an article?
People at Wikipedia:Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page.
9. 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.
10. 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!
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 parameter in the {{WikiProject Football}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Football| class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values for the class parameter may be used:

The following values for the importance parameter may be used:

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

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance scale[edit]

Article importance grading scheme
Label Base criteria Football-related criteria Examples
Top Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, positions, confederations, etc.
No biographical articles.
Association football
Offside (football)
High Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Teams with international notability.
Top-level leagues, awards and competitions.
Top-rated world-class players and managers.
Real Madrid CF
Lionel Messi
UEFA Champions League
Mid Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Teams with nationwide notability.
Mid-level leagues.
Players or managers that have participated in a World Cup or for five years in a top league.
A.S. Roma
Swiss Super League
Gareth Barry
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. Any other team. Most players and managers. Football-related lists, season articles. Leek Town F.C.
Roberto Biffi
List of Arsenal F.C. players


Current status[edit]

The proportion of all articles with an assessed project banner is:

95.6% assessed (estimate: some more article talk pages may still need a banner)


The proportion of all articles with known importance is:

83.7% known importance (estimate: some more articles may still need importance to be assessed)


FIFA national football teams coloured by article class (25 December 2016)

Requests for assessment[edit]

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.






  • Ghana Football Association - I cleaned the article up a few days ago, and am wondering if it is worthy of a higher ranking. CoolieCoolster (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Belgium women's national football team - This article is still marked as "Stub"-class, but it has undoubtedly improved way beyond that! It has probably been C-class quality for a while already, and after many recent edits, I would be so bold as to say it may already be B-class. –Sygmoral (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done C-class as there is still a lot of unsourced sentences, definitely not a stub though. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Kermit Erasmus - After a substantial number of edits and cleaning I believe this article is no longer a stub and could be considered a C-class. Liam (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. reassessed as C-class. Lead should be lengthened. C679 06:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Harry Beadles - Expanded this article quite a bit recently. Wondering if it's worthy of moving up to B-class. Any pointers on improving it would be very welcome as well. Kosack (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Ludwig Augustinsson - Have created and worked on this page for a year now, I was wondering if there were chances of receiving a higher grade than C, since it was set when the article were with way less content. // Psemmler (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Mahmoud Dahoud - I would like to request this page be graded as C-class in the quality and Mid in the importance scale. Liam (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Clube Atlético Mineiro in international club football - I believe the article complies with B-class requirements, regarding supporting material, style and references. Felipe Bini (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Promoted to GA status. Felipebini (talk) 13:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Already done Per above. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Erin McLeod - I have made substantial edits and expanded this article, and would like to request that is be reassessed for a possible upgrade. Thanks. - Soccerfan1996 (talk) 02:50, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Already done Now that it's been promoted to GA status. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:27, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Stéphane Sparagna - substantial editing has been effected to the article, aligning style and reference in such a manner to comply with the requirements of a B-class rating. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. - Not by myself but page has been awarded GA status Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Nahikari García - have made numerous edits adding information to body and sourcing references. I feel the page is worthy of C-class rating. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • FK Tikveš - Hi all, I was wondering if the page can be considered for a possible upgrade to B-class. Kind Regards F00700I (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Francesco Totti - Hello. This article failed the GA review, but I was wondering if it were still good enough to be upgraded from C-class to B-class, as a few editors and I have cleaned up the prose and I have also added many more citations. I was also wondering if it should be upgraded from Mid to High-importance on the WikiProject Football's Importance scale. Thank you! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 03:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Article definitely warrants B-class rating while awaiting GA reviews. Has also been upgraded to high importance Liam E. Bekker (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Paul Pogba - Hello. I was wondering if this article should be upgraded from Mid to High-importance on the WikiProject Football's Importance scale. Thank you! Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Already done Now that it's been promoted to GA status. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Sebastian Giovinco - While the article awaits a GA review, I was wondering if this article warranted an upgrade from C-class to B-class, as a few editors and I have cleaned up the prose and added many more citations. I'm not sure if it warrants an upgrade from Mid to High-importance on the WikiProject Football's Importance scale, but I was also wondering if it should be considered for one. Thank you! Best, Messirulez (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Already done Now that it's been promoted to GA status. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  • 1954 FIFA World Cup Final I have greatly expanded the article, adding inter alia historical context, background on the Hungarian and German 1954 football teams, material on team preparations and tactics, controversies, relevant developments after the match, as well as quotes and many citations. The article was rated "start" level quality before, I would be grateful for a review. Henry Kaspar (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Bumped to C class as there are still some unsourced areas, but definitely not start class anymore. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you - you are fast :-)
As for the unsourced areas, I would be grateful for a little guidance. The only areas were this applied were, in my perception, the "path to the final, Hungary/West Germany" - which mostly lists opponents and results prior to the final, as documented on the main FIFA 1954 World Cup site - and "match - summary", which briefly retells what everyone can see on youtube. Still, I added a reference to the FIFA's 1954 World Cup site, and another to a youtube clip with the full TV coverage. Further sourced the claim that Germany's second goal would not have counted if the referee had called a foul.
There a couple of instances where the language may still be a tad loose and that I would have drafted differently, but I did not want to edit to heavily the work of previous authors out of respect for their efforts. Henry Kaspar (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
No problem. In order to achieve a higher rating, the most important things are citations and prose of wording. For a WP:GA class article, almost every sentence should have a source. The prose is also a big factor as it must be neutral and unbiased in its tone. I haven't read the article in detail, but if you feel the wording is too loose or too biased in areas, feel free to edit it; Wikipedia is a collective encyclopedia, no one owns anything. And if anyone objects, hash it out on the talk page. Also the lead could be more comprehensive of the whole article. That's what you would need for a GA nomination to probably pass. Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've taken this to heart, weeded out any remaining traces of loose language, and added more than another dozen or so references - such that every sentence that could possibly be challenged is now sourced. I also added a little to the lead, but would need to think what to sensibly include there. Cheers, HK Henry Kaspar (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Jeff Hendrick - Currently unassessed for some reason. I've done quite a bit of work on this article over the past 5 or 6 months, tidying up the prose, adding citations etc. The big thing it's missing is a picture but that can wait. I think it deserves a B-class Low-Importance rating as I'm quite happy with the current state of the article but happy to go with whatever is decided. Many thanks. Mórtas is Dóchas (talk) 15:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Well sourced article. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


  • Jagiellonia Białystok I know this article has been reviewed before but I have made extensive additions to the article and added many sources. Any feedback would be helpful. Thanks! Matt918 (talk) 2:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Add new requests above this line


The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.