Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/English non-league task force/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the English non-league football taskforce, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's English non-league football 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 project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:English non-league football articles by quality  and Category:English non-league football 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 taskforce 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 to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.


 * 3. Someone put a 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 English non-league taskforce 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 taskforce 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 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 taskforce 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
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):



The following values for the class parameter may be used:
 * FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class English non-league football articles)
 * FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class English non-league football articles)
 * A (adds articles to Category:A-Class English non-league football articles)
 * GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class English non-league football articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class English non-league football articles)
 * C (adds articles to Category:C-Class English non-league football articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class English non-league football articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class English non-league football articles)
 * List (adds articles to Category:List-Class English non-league football articles)
 * Category (adds articles to Category:Category-Class English non-league football articles)
 * Disambig (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class English non-league football articles)
 * File (adds articles to Category:File-Class English non-league football articles)
 * Redirect (adds articles to Category:Redirect-Class English non-league football articles)
 * Template (adds articles to Category:Template-Class English non-league football articles)

The following values for the non-league importance parameter may be used:
 * Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance English non-league football articles)
 * High (adds articles to Category:High-importance English non-league football articles)
 * Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance English non-league football articles)
 * Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance English non-league football articles)
 * NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance English non-league football articles)

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

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 Peer review instead.