Wikipedia:WikiProject Cue sports/Assessment

Welcome to the Assessment Department of WikiProject Cue sports (WP:CUE for short). This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's cue sports articles (including snooker; while that sport has its own WikiProject, it has no assessment department.) While much of the work is done in conjunction with the Wikipedia 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 Cue sports project article talk page banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Cue sports articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.


 * Please note that the ratings are similar to, but independent of and in some details different than those used by other WikiProjects (on sports, biography, national history, film, novels, and so on). Other WikiProjects may rate the same article, and their ratings may not agree with ours or with each other, because each has a different set of criteria.  In particular, WP:CUE may often consider a player biographical article to remain at a lower rating than WikiProject Biography (WP:BIO) might, because our standards for article completion are much higher.  From a WP:BIO standpoint, an article may seem "complete" if it is highly informative to an average reader, while from a WP:CUE point of view, it might remain woefully incomplete if missing substantial information on tournament standings, records, and other statistics, which a sports fan reader may be seeking.  For this reason, it is possible in an extreme case for an article to be rated overall as a Featured Article in Wikipedia, but not be recognized as one by this WikiProject, if important material is demonstrably missing or incorrect.  Also, the priority levels assigned by WP:CUE will often differ radically from those of WP:BIO.

Frequently asked questions

 * 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 Cue sports project to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else (though it is appreciated if you put at the very top of the talk page, or  in the case of biographies. ; if you forget that part someone else will add it in later).


 * 3. Someone put a Cue sports project template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within this project's scope. What should I do?
 * Because of the limited number of articles we deal with, we rarely make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. Sometimes the connection may yet to be documented in the article; please ask at the Project talk page rather than simply removing the template.


 * 4. Who can assess articles?
 * Any member of WikiProject Cue sports is free to add — or change — the rating of an article within the project's scope. 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 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. Please note that the Featured Article and Good Article levels (and consequently A-class to an extent, as it depends on GA-class) have associated formal review processes that need be followed, and are not under the control of this project.


 * 6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
 * Certainly. 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, though existing article talk page commentary or cleaup tags in the article may already document any problems the article has. 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?
 * Participants in this project's Peer Review Department, or those of the Wikipedia-wide Peer Review process, can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review to the project first, to reduce load on WP Peer Review, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page. Asking on the article's own talk page is unlikely to produce timely results.


 * 9. What if I don't agree with a rating?
 * You can list it in the "Requests for assessment" section below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again, or use the project's Assessment Dept. talk page to discuss the matter.  Please note that some of the available levels have associated formal review processes that need be followed by assessors, as they are not subject to this project's control.


 * 10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
 * To an extent they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise. The ratings do have some objective criteria.  If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to bring it up at the Wikipedia Version 1.0 project.


 * 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
An article's assessment is generated from the class and priority parameters in the Cue sports project banner on its talk page (please see Template:Cue sports project for documentation on how to use the specific fields):

For non-biography cue sports:

For biographies of players and non-player cue sports personalities:

(Emphasis added to highlight additional line.)

Cue sports biographical articles should also have the similar but different WPBiography template added to them, below the Cue sports project one. The WPBiography template should make use of the "living" parameter, but not make use of the needs-infobox parameter (the cue sports bio infoboxes are not the same as the default biography ones.)

The following values may be used for the class parameter, and should be assigned according to the quality scale below:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed cue sports articles.
 * FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class cue sports articles)&#91; * &#93;
 * A (adds articles to Category:A-Class cue sports articles)
 * GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class cue sports articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class cue sports articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class cue sports articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class cue sports articles, which may not always entirely agree with Category:Cue sports stubs)
 * NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class cue sports articles)

&#91; * &#93; Note that lists are assessed using the same scale as other articles; however, they progress towards featured list rather than featured article status. &#91;return&#93; The following values may be used for the priority parameter, and should be assigned according to the priority scale below:

Articles for which a valid priority is not provided are listed in Category:Priority Unassessed cue sports articles.
 * Top (adds articles to Category:Priority Top cue sports articles)
 * High (adds articles to Category:Priority High cue sports articles)
 * Mid (adds articles to Category:Priority Mid cue sports articles)
 * Low (adds articles to Category:Priority Low cue sports articles)
 * NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds artilcles to Category:Priority NA cue sports articles}

The NA value is not used if an article's class is set to NA.

The template also has a core=yes parameter for the most vital articles only, as selected by the WikiProject Cue sports Assessment Department. No article should be flagged as "core" without being discussed on the Assessment talk page here. Articles with this flag are added to Category:Class Core cue sports articles, in addition to whatever other class they are assigned.

Priority scale
Priority must be regarded as a relative term. As priority values are applied within this project, they only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to any work groups, task forces or sub-projects (e.g. WikiProject Snooker) that the article falls under. An article judged to be "Top priority" in one context may be only "Mid priority" in another project. In particular, WP:BIO will classify the vast majority of cue sports (and all sports, for that matter) bios as Low priority, because they are being compared with everyone else in the world, including national statespeople, Nobel laureate scientists, etc. This of course is insufficient classification within a particular field, and also does not help determine which articles within this field rise to the "cream of the crop" and receive higher priority levels by more general criteria such as those of WP:BIO. That is where the WP:CUE ratings come in.

The criteria used for rating article priority are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average cue sports fan reader (or perhaps even average sports fan reader) of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). By contrast, for example WP:BIO's criteria address the average reader, period, regardless of their topical interest level.

So, WP:CUE priority levels are not connected in any way to those used by WP:BIO or other WikiProjects, nor to the Core biographies or Wikipedia 1.0 projects. They exist to prioritize this WikiProject." To the extent this happens efficiently and accurately, WP:CUE priority levels assist'' the rating systems of other (and especially broader) projects by ensuring that the articles are good from the point of view of this field.  It is much more difficult for WP:BIO, etc., to determine the relative importance of an article subject much less it's actual completion, and thus rate it properly, without the in-field expertise of WP:CUE doing the underlying groundwork.

Requests for assessment
If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get detailed feedback about the article. If you desire a review, use the peer review process. If you assess an article, please strike it off using Strike-through text so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Seeking an A-class rating? We suggest you submit it for a Peer Review to allow us more time to respond and review. Be sure to first read what qualifies as an A rating before doing so though.

Generally, articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B', unless they are already rated as 'GA' by Good articles/Candidates.

PS: Please note that, especially for the lower levels of grading, this project's standards are more stringent than those of many other projects. Please do not be offended if an article is rated "Stub" by this project but "Start" by another, such as WikiProject Biography. The scales are not quite the same.

Add requests to the bottom of this list.
 * 1) SDFOWdfksdfoew Done. - sklfsadfdsf 03:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Aiewiododfy - blah blah blah asdfsdfadsf 17:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)



Assessment log

 * The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography articles by quality log

Worklist

 * The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.