Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the College Football WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's college football articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP: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 WikiProject College football project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:College football articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

 * How do I add an article to the College football WikiProject? : Just add WikiProject College football to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
 * How can I get my article rated? : Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * Who can assess articles? : Any member of the College Football WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
 * 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.
 * Where can I get more comments about my article? : This does not exist for this project yet. Perhaps you could join the project and create a peer review system?
 * What if I don't agree with a quality 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.
 * What if I don't agree with an importance rating? : If you believe an item is mis-classed or its class has since changed, please list it in the Requesting an assessment with your reasons. Please see the importance scale below and make sure your claims follow the criteria listed.
 * Aren't the ratings subjective? : Yes, they are, 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!
 * How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? : A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
 * Can I review my own article? : You may not rate your own articles. New articles should be added to the peer review section of assessment. Large changes to articles that may change the quality should be added to the Requesting an assessment section. Articles that may need a change in Importance status should be listed in the Importance review section.
 * Exception: editors who create articles and/or files can assess the following classifications: Start, Stub, List, Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, Redirect, or Template. Self-classification of "start" articles should be used sparingly as most new articles tend to be "stubs" -- the remaining classifications are procedural in nature and can be applied as apporpriate. However,  if an article creator thinks the article should be C, B, A, GA, FA, or FL, they should leave it unassessed and request an assessment.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the project coordinators directly.

Instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the WikiProject College football project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):


 * (This is currently the only option)

While assessing articles, please rate the class with a capital letter. This will insure uniformity on the template.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:


 * FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class college football articles)
 * FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class college football articles)
 * A (adds articles to Category:A-Class college football articles)
 * GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class college football articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class college football articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class college football articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class college football articles)
 * List (lists that haven't yet reached Featured List (FL) status; adds articles to Category:List-Class college football articles)
 * File (images, files, etc.; adds articles to Category:File-Class college football articles)
 * Template (templates; adds articles to Category:Template-Class college football articles)
 * Category (categories; adds articles to Category:Category-Class college football articles)
 * Project (related to project administration; adds articles to Category:Project-Class college football articles)
 * Portal (portal-related pages; adds articles to Category:Portal-Class college football articles)
 * Disambig (disambugation pages; adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class college football articles)
 * Redirect (redirection pages; adds articles to Category:Redirect-Class college football articles)
 * NA (rarely used; only used in sandbox and other non-article or non-project areas; adds pages to Category:NA-Class college football articles)

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

Importance scale
The following importance scale may look complicated, but keep in mind that this WikiProject has nearly 30,000 articles in it. A more explicit scale allows easier implementation and fewer arguments. With this matrix, it should be relatively simple to assess the importance of even a stub article, it being necessary only to determine the applicable category, the level of competition, and whether any special considerations apply.

With consensus, an article may be assessed as one level lower than given for its type. In exceptional cases, with consensus, an article may be assessed as one level higher than given for its type.


 * Based on level at the time, e.g. 2010 UMass Minutemen football team was in FCS but 2013 UMass Minutemen football team will be in FBS. This principle also applies to now-defunct programs, conferences, and post-season games. Pre-NCAA schools should be assessed using ????.From 19?? to 19?? the NCAA did not use divisions and should be assessed as ???. From 19?? to 1972 the NCAA University Division should be assessed using FBS levels and the College Division should be assessed using Division II (???) levels. From 1973 to 1977 there were no subdivisions, and all Division I schools should be assessed using FBS levels. Prior to 2006 FBS was called Division I-A and FCS was called Division I-AA.


 * National champion team seasons, Heisman Trophy winners, consensus first-team All-Americans, should start two levels higher than given; conference champion seasons, All-Americans, and other major national award winners should start one level higher than given.


 * Based on the highest level coached; coaches who have won a national championship should start two levels higher than given; coaches who have finished a season in the top 10 of a major poll or won a conference championship should start one level higher than given.


 * Facilities that have always been primarily practice facilities should start one level lower than given. Facilities that have served as the home site for multiple national champion team seasons and/or regularly hosted a top-tier (BCS/top-10) post-season game should start two levels higher than given; facilities that have served as the home site for one national champion team season and/or regularly hosted a post-season game should start one level higher than given.


 * National player of the year or MVP awards (e.g. Harlon Hill Trophy) should start two levels higher than given; other major national awards (including positional awards, coaching awards, All-America teams, and national halls of fame) should start one level higher than given.

Sub-topics
Often, as an article grows, sections of it may be spun off as separate articles (see Summary style). When this is the case, the sub-topic should generally be one importance level lower than the parent article, or infrequently the same importance level. Only in exceptional cases will the sub-article be of higher importance than the parent article. Among others, this rule applies to a team history (History of Ohio State Buckeyes football) and lists of bowl games by team (List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games) relative to the team article; football by conference (Big 12 Conference football) and lists of champions by conference (List of Big Ten Conference football champions) relative to the conference article; bowl games by season (2010–11 NCAA football bowl games) and yearly rankings by season (2010 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings) relative to the association season article.

Special assessment levels

 * Unknown-importance articles are those that have not yet been assessed, or where the importance is in dispute.
 * NA-importance pages are pages outside articlespace, including project pages and templates.
 * No-importance pages are non-articles in articlespace, such as redirects and disambiguation pages.

Requesting an 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 by adding

to the talk page. New articles do not need to be listed here unless they have gone unrated for more than 2 weeks. Please be sure to add new articles to the assessment table.

Worklist and log
Click here for the complete log.