From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
Main pages
Main project	talk
Task forces and sub-projects	talk
Football portal	talk
New articles	talk
Cleanup articles	talk
Football AID
Article improvement drive	talk
Previous collaborations	talk
Featured collaborations	talk
Previous nominations	talk
Football Assessment
Assessment Department	talk
Assessment log	talk
Manual of style
Club articles	talk
Club templates	talk
National team articles	talk
National team templates	talk
National association articles	talk
National assn. templates	talk
Competition articles	talk
Match articles	talk
Player articles	talk
Stadium articles	talk
Other
Category structure	talk
Notability criteria	talk
Template list	talk
Sources and links	talk
Participants	talk
Project milestones	talk
Did You Know? archive	talk
edit · changes

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 {{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.

[edit] 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 {{Football}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a {{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.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Football}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

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

The following values for the class parameter may be used:

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

The following values for the importance parameter may be used:

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

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.

[edit] Quality scale

WikiProject article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	The article has attained Featured article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended). Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	Tourette Syndrome (as of June 2008)
FL {{FL-Class}}	The article has attained Featured list status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.			List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records (as of February 2008)
A {{A-Class}}	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. More detailed criteria Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Films).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help.	Durian (as of March 2007)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has attained Good article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the good article criteria: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria. More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	No reader should be left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style and related style guidelines.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007)
C {{C-Class}}	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.	Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008)
Start {{Start-Class}}	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)
List {{List-Class}}	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.	There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.	Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	List of A.S. Roma players (as of February 2008)

[edit] Importance scale

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Football articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	2	11	20	13		46
	FL		3	11	64		78
	A	1		1			2
	GA		12	56	34	2	104
	B	12	156	310	141	202	821
	C		31	215	162	33	441
	Start	18	223	2173	3486	2916	8816
	Stub	1	69	3053	7843	35729	46695
	List		2	27	362	71	462
	Assessed	34	507	5866	12105	38953	57465
	Unassessed		2	17	40	9090	9149
	Total	34	509	5883	12145	48043	66614

[edit] Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month

	Aug 2006		Sep 2006		Oct 2006		Nov 2006		Dec 2006		Jan 2007		Feb 2007
FA	9	1.59 %	15	1.28 %	18	0.37 %	20	0.35 %	21	0.32 %	22	0.30 %	24	0.30 %
A	3	0.53 %	2	0.17 %	4	0.08 %	3	0.05 %	2	0.03 %	4	0.06 %	1	0.01 %
GA	6	1.06 %	10	0.85 %	12	0.25 %	15	0.26 %	15	0.23 %	14	0.19 %	15	0.19 %
B	30	5.30 %	49	4.18 %	130	2.69 %	149	2.57 %	186	2.85 %	212	2.92 %	234	2.92 %
Start	45	7.95 %	103	8.80 %	432	8.95 %	496	8.56 %	602	9.22 %	786	10.82 %	930	11.61 %
Stub	77	13.60 %	125	10.67 %	479	9.92 %	541	9.34 %	1,262	19.32 %	1,677	23.10 %	2,081	25.99 %
Unassessed	396	69.96 %	867	74.04 %	3,754	77.74 %	4,570	78.87 %	4,443	68.03 %	4,546	62.61 %	4,722	58.97 %
Total	566		1,171		4,829		5,794		6,531		7,261		8,007

All figures given for the end of each month

	Mar 2007		Apr 2007		May 2007		Jun 2007		Jul 2007		Aug 2007		Sep 2007
FA	24	0.27 %	28	0.29 %	30	0.30 %	35	0.33 %	37	0.29 %	39	0.27 %	49	0.30 %
A	1	0.01 %	3	0.03 %	2	0.02 %	2	0.02 %	2	0.02 %	1	0.01 %	1	0.01 %
GA	15	0.17 %	16	0.17 %	22	0.22 %	26	0.24 %	30	0.23 %	38	0.26 %	40	0.24 %
B	275	3.05 %	349	3.66 %	362	3.64 %	408	3.82 %	458	3.55 %	490	3.37 %	518	3.17 %
Start	1,109	12.29 %	1,470	15.42 %	1,585	15.92 %	1,784	16.69 %	2,320	18.00 %	2,827	19.46 %	3,239	19.80 %
Stub	2,699	29.91 %	3,554	37.29 %	3,790	38.08 %	4,180	39.11 %	5,670	43.99 %	6,856	47.19 %	8,019	49.01 %
Unassessed	4,900	54.31 %	4,110	43.13 %	4,162	41.82 %	4,254	39.80 %	4,371	33.92 %	4,277	29.44 %	4,495	27.47 %
Total	9,023		9,530		9,953		10,689		12,888		14,528		16,361

[edit] Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class.

	Sep 2006		Oct 2006		Nov 2006		Dec 2006		Jan 2007		Feb 2007
FA	+6	+66.67 %	+3	+20.00 %	+2	+11.11 %	+1	+5.00 %	+1	+4.76 %	+2	+9.09 %
A	−1	−33.33 %	+2	+100.00 %	−1	−25.00 %	−1	−33.33 %	+2	+100.00 %	−3	−75.00 %
GA	+4	+66.67 %	+2	+20.00 %	+3	+25.00 %	±0	±0.00 %	−1	−6.67 %	+1	+7.14 %
B	+19	+63.33 %	+81	+165.31 %	+19	+14.62 %	+37	+24.83 %	+26	+13.98 %	+22	+10.38 %
Start	+54	+128.89 %	+329	+319.42 %	+64	+14.81 %	+106	+21.37 %	+184	+30.56 %	+144	+18.32 %
Stub	+48	+62.34 %	+354	+283.20 %	+62	+12.94 %	+721	+133.27 %	+415	+32.88 %	+404	+24.09 %
Unassessed	+471	+118.94 %	+2,887	+332.99 %	+816	+21.74 %	−127	−2.78 %	+103	+2.32 %	+176	+3.25 %
Total	+605	+106.89 %	+3,658	+312.38 %	+965	+19.98 %	+737	+12.72 %	+730	+11.18 %	+746	+10.27 %

[edit] 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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

Ipswich Wanderers F.C. - C class? Itfc+canes=me (talk) 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Cup-tied I gave this a couple of hours' work, could do with knowing what needs to happen next to improve it - thanks MickO'Bants (talk) 23:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

BSC Young Boys I have re-translated/rewritten this article in English and have added links and references. I would appreciate an assessment.

Needs a lot more referencing and general improvements in the standard of English, so C-Class. Several other issues too - Transfers Summer 2008, Notable Players, overall tone, and does the article require the details of every European game the club has played? Dancarney (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mexico national football team record is an article I recently started. I feel it is very complete, as it outlines Mexico's head-to-head record with the countries it has played. I found all the stats from FIFA's "head-to-head" tool, a very long and tiresome process. I believe that most of the data is accurate, as I have checked it several times. However, I don't think FIFA included results from before 1929, as that was the year Mexico joined. Some clarification would be appreciated, as well as an assessment. Thanks. Lordoffireanddeath26 (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like a list, so I've classed it as such. Peanut4 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ivan Rakitic is rated as a stub for some reason. Very unlikely seeing as it has been fairly high qualify for some time. It has been under extensive changes lately and is at a stable position. It has many images and well written sections based on international and club football, as well as a playing style section and Personal Life. I think it is MUCH more than a stub. My quick recommendation would be a C with the possibility of a B. Can I get suggestions on this please?

Domiy (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I've reclassed it as start, but there's a little bit more work to do to get it to B or C class. Most notably it lacks citation, but also particularly needs work on the lead per WP:LEAD and some WP:MOS fixes. Peanut4 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I fixed it up now (as per the message I left you on your page). Please have a look at it now and consider classing it better.

Domiy (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, you've only added one citation, and there are still plenty of WP:MOS fixes to be made. But at least the lead is better now. Still Start class in my opinion, but if you want a second review, I'll leave it open for someone else. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers. I recently started the article and it has been rated as a List. With my recent diff, I added a large bit of text to the article and believe it deserves to be re-assessed. I am a member of the Football WikiProject, but am unsure of the sufficient rating. Ɔrassic ^(talk) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists have only two ratings. List or Featured List. The prose needs more referencing, but other than that I would start a formal peer review, before heading for WP:FLC. Peanut4 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just added a few more references. Still trying to find more... Ɔrassic ^(talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City Wizards season 2008 please see what rating this deserves. Morry32 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Would like a outsiders opinion on Halmstads BK, as a supporter i already know lots about the club, but would like hear from one that isnt. --> Halmstad, Talk to me 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

US Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program I've reordered most of the page, deleted a lot of the plugs for USYS, and added information. Like to hear some thoughts on it. Boylanj64 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Chalaca A group of editors, including myself, have been improving the article by adding more sources, expanding it, adding pictures, etc. It seems to me that the article, at this point, is no longer a "start" class article. Could someone give it a new rating and change its class? Thanks in advance.--MarshalN20 (talk) 16:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Buckie Thistle I have been editing this page for a number of months now and over time i have managed to build it up quite a bit. The main changes i made over the months were the additions of sections on last season and this season, aswell as a squad list and club honours section. However at the top of the page it says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." and im not sure how to go about sorting this out? Thanks in advance. Malky

Bath City F.C. It has been over a year since this was assessed as start quality. A lot of improvement has happened since. Could someone re-assess and give help on how to improve further? Thanks! Maniacgeorge (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Still start class. It needs far better inline referencing. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been working on RC Strasbourg for the last days. what do you think about it ? How can I improve it ? Maybe my English is not good enough... Thanks ! Zitelli67 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Following several useful suggestions, the article has been enriched and completed with separate lists of players, managers and seasons. I would be very grateful should someone have some time to look again at it. Zitelli67 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Lennox. I have added an infobox as well as tidying up and adding to the article. At the moment it is rated as a stub and would be grateful if it could be looked at again. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Add new requests above this line

[edit] Log

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