Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on Sports, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's sports 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 Sports}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Sports articles by quality and Category:Sports 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 Sports}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Sports}} 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 WikiProject Sports 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 Sports}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Sports|class=???|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter. Please note that you must type them exactly as below as they are case-sensitive:

If a rating is not assigned, the article will be filed in Category:Unassessed sports articles. The class should be assigned according to the grading scheme. A list of Unassessed and In dispute articles can be discussed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Assessment.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter. Please note that you must type them exactly as below as they are case-sensitive:

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

Quality scale[edit]

Importance scale[edit]

The |importance=value parameter records the project's priority assessment rating currently assigned to the article. When this banner appears on the talk page of a non-article, no class value need be applied.

On an aritcle talk page, if the value is unassigned, an invalid value is given, or the class parameter is set to "NA", the parameter defaults to "unassigned" and the template places the talkpage into Category:Unknown-importance sports articles.

Valid values for this parameter, their associated meanings and their categories are given in the table below. Values should be typed as shown (e.g. |importance=Mid):

Importance parameter values (Category:sports articles by importance)
Value Meaning Category
Top Topics that are among the most important, defining articles on sports. Examples include the main article on sports, vital equipment, international governing bodies and leagues/tours/associations, game rules, current world championships (overview article), this year's article on the world championships, current pro world champions. Top-importance articles are often selected for Wikipedia CD/DVD release. If the project has more than a dozen or so Top-importance articles, consider moving some to High-importance. Top-importance sports articles.
High Topics that are of certain but not crucial importance in sports. Examples include former pro world champions, pro world championship top-16 contenders, current amateur world champions, major international events (overview articles), high-profile dedicated venues, game variants, detailed stand-alone articles on aspects of sports. High-importance sports articles
Mid Articles that are reasonably important in sports. Examples include national-class players/teams below world championship level, major national events (overview articles). Mid-importance sports articles
Low Article of limited importance in sports. Examples include previous years' annual event articles, and marginally notable players/teams, venues, events, etc. Media (TV shows, films, books, etc.) relating to sports usually also fall into this assessment level (for this project - a film, etc., project might rate the article higher). Low-importance sports articles


Current status[edit]

Historical counts[edit]

Monthly changes[edit]

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.

  1. Philadelphian cricket team is now up for Peer Review here. An assessment is also needed by project sports, so if anyone is willing to do that or comment on the PR, that would be great.--Eva bd 13:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Tom Hawkins is up for Peer Review in order to gain GA class.Boomtish 08:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Kelly pool: Barring any objections, I'm going to assess this as an A-class article. It has informally failed (withdrawn) GA due to lack of a well-developed history section, but as is adequately explained at Talk:Kelly pool there simply is no more written history in third-party sources on which to draw. Like many games and sports its actual origin is simply lost to time. In my opinion (and I know the source material about as well as the principal editor of the article) this article is literally about as good as it can possibly be, barring the future discovery of some long-lost trove of historical billiards lore. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 18:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. History of the Denver Broncos: I have made extensive changes and would like the start-class reassessed as well as suggestions for improvement. Thank You---Johnelwayrules (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. New Zealand Indoor Bowls I have created this article and would like a total review please-- as soon as possible :)Nzcit (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Craig Breslow I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. John Grabow I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Brian Horwitz I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Ian Kinsler I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Michael Koplove I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  11. Adam Stern I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  12. Josh Whitesell I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  13. Jason Hirsh I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  14. Adam Greenberg I think this may well now be better than "Start."--Ethelh (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  15. Scott Schoeneweis I think this is now better than "C."--Ethelh (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  16. National Track & Field Hall of Fame I created this article and would like an assesment. Thanks --dashiellx (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  17. Sport in Hamburg not new, but not rated by project sports yet. Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  18. unicycle hockey Please would you review and add to the the wikiproject. Tullis (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  19. TAFISA I originally split this article from ethnosport and recently overhauled it, adding more references and linking to here from TAFISA participants. Requesting assessment. PaintedCarpet (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  20. Australia at the World Championships in Athletics | Not new but not assessed by this project thanks - NickGibson3900 (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  21. Micheen Thornycroft - needs assessment - Kuda188 (talk) 18:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  22. National Junior College Athletic Association In need of importance assesment User:Spaceboy900 (User talk:Spaceboy900) 23:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  23. Penn State Nittany Lions women's soccer I did a massive overhaul of this page, needing a new assessment. Thanks, NoahRiffe (talk) 18:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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