Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:WikiProject Basketball/Assessment

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

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 {{WikiProject Basketball}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Basketball}} 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 basketball 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.

Instructions

Quality assessment

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Basketball}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Basketball articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Basketball articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Basketball articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Basketball articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Basketball articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Basketball articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Basketball articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Basketball articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Basketball articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Basketball articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Basketball articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Basketball articles) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Basketball articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Basketball articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Basketball articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Basketball articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Basketball articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Basketball articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Basketball articles) ???

Quality scale

Importance scale

Statistics

Current status

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

91.4% assessed (estimate: some more article talk pages may still need a banner)

   

The proportion of all articles with known importance is:

100% known importance (estimate: some more articles may still need importance to be assessed)

   



Log

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