Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Olympics WikiProject, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Olympics-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 program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the WikiProject Olympics project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Olympics articles by quality and Category:Olympics 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 Olympics to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.


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



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:


 * FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Olympics articles)
 * FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Olympics articles)
 * A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Olympics articles)
 * GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Olympics articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Olympics articles)
 * C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Olympics articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Olympics articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Olympics articles)
 * NA (for pages where assessment is unnecessary, such as templates; adds items to Category:NA-Class Olympics articles)

If a rating is not assigned, the article will be filed in Category:Unassessed Olympics articles. The class should be assigned according to the grading scheme.

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:


 * Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Olympics articles)
 * High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Olympics articles)
 * Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Olympics articles)
 * Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Olympics articles)
 * Unknown (adds articles to Category:Unknown-importance Olympics articles)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Olympics articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Olympics 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.
 * 1) Micheen Thornycroft - The article has been developed over time and it needs reassessment.
 * 2) 1992 Barcelona Olympics - The list of broadcasters doesn't seem to be accurate; some countries have 2 or more broadcasters (when it was known back then that only one exclusive broadcaster has the rights to air the games to a particular country/area) and some broadcasters didn't exist yet, like HD-specific channels that wasn't broadcasting back then.
 * 3) 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay - 244 fully organized and correctly used ref templates, 17 Commons images (excluding flags), written according to manual of style, 129 KB, and is still rated Start class. --haha169 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To just briefly comment on this article, this article has made much headway, but there are two things I would like to see before this rating goes any higher. The first is that the relay is not actually finished yet, so it would make sense to wait until its done before any rating is changed. Second, the page is very jumbled, and could use a good look-through and restructure (albeit a brief one would be sufficient for me to give it a B-class ranking). Jared   (t)  &ensp; 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea. Lets wait until the relay is over, and go through a massive re-organization. Possibly a creation of a new article as well. --haha169 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Torch relay is complete. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  00:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Mutiny of the Matoika. Recently split off from an article about the ship USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290). Would like to have an WP:OLYMPICS assessment, particularly as to importance. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a wonderful article. To summarize, I had never heard of the incident before in my life, but now I feel as though I am fully aware of what went on. There is no question in my mind that this article is at least B-class, and I was going to suggest that you should definitely take it to GA, but you've already made the nomination, which was pleasing to see! I have no doubt that it will get that classification, and after that is done, and perhaps a few more touch ups are done, I would have no problem being one person to recommend an A-class ranking. It is not quite there yet, though, but I'd have to reread it to give editing suggestions. As for importance, I think that Mid-importance is good, given the scope of this project, and even though I was tempted to say Low (and someone can overrule me on this), I think that it "notable within its own field," although a case can be made that it is not "significant within its own field" (Low). Jared   (t)  &ensp; 01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Swimming at the 1980 Summer Olympics - Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay Trying to promote it to FL, I need a baseline. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Beatrix Schuba - This stub-class BLP article has been expanded with more references and needs to be reassessed. --Sephiroth9611 (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Netball at the Olympics.  I gave this a C at the onset because I don't feel it adequately covers the topic.  Is that assessment the right one?  It could probably be a start but it has citations. --LauraHale (talk) 06:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a reasonable assessment. Contains a good amount of information on a number of issues relating to/arising from netball not being in the Olympics, including citations, and so is better than a start class. The article has the potential to be taken further, GA would be possible, I do however think the opening section "Olympic recognition" reads more like a general argument over the inclusion of women's sports in the Games and possibly shouldn't have quite such prominence in this netball article. Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) AroundTheRings - This stub class article has been redone and needs to be reassessed -- Ngmejias (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2011
 * 2) Could someone reassess Avery Brundage for importance? I think mid-importance for this guy who ran the Olympics for 20 years is a bit low.  Should probably be at least high, possibly top.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Ellen van Dijk - Is new in the Olympics Project and needs to be assessed. After getting a 'C-Class' rating in other projects, this article has made headway so I think the rating may goes higher. Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 10:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Richard Thompson (athlete) re-assement
 * 5) John Stockton Not editor of article, but better than Start. Tapered (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 6) Kevin Mayer Edited and vastly enlarged the page, including a bigger, better structured lead, "Career", and "Personal life" sections. It was probably not at Stub level when I got hold of it, but it certainly isn't now. --Luisftd (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 7) India national football team at the Olympics This following article is well written piece, thoroughly researched and presented without neglecting any important information. By FA Criteria, I hope it meets all 5 points that is well written, comprehensive as it does not neglect any vital or important information as the article is more leans to a historic piece, it accounts all sphere of events, well researched, allmost every part is provided with consistent citation, neutral and a stable article and no edit wars or vandalism or any such things happened till date. With that, it is well structured with a good lead and summary. Not lengthy and is very summarised about events happened. I hope the article deserves a FA status. Please review the article. Dey subrata (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 8) Andrei Rybakou was at stub level with little information before additions to his Olympic career. I feel it is at least above a stub class currently. Hamma085 (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * 9) Philippines at the 2020 Summer Olympics - currently start class but needs to be reassessed.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 10) Yuna Kim requires an importance assessment in this project.
 * 11) Add new requests above

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