Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Assessment

Inquiry
What about template or category talk, namespaces? Is it necessary to add NA to importance? For example a template talk page would look like this; and a category talk page would look like this;  Any comments about this is greatly welcomed. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Surely talk pages don't need to be assessed at all? Especially since the assessment template relating to the article itself will be on the talk page already..... ChrisTheDude 13:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As above, I don't think it's necessary. The "class" parameter is meant for a quality rating rather than for a "article/category/template" rating. I think "NA" in the "class" parameter is sufficient for all the non-article pages. DrKiernan 13:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh! sorry! I meant template AND category pages; NOT talk pages. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Making NA for all the category and namespaces would be too general. If template or category is added in the class parameter, the assessment template would be more accurate. Of course NA could be added to the importance parameter. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I this would be unnecessary, to be honest. Class is for a rating of an article's quality, N/A articles show those those that are non-articles, which is sufficient in my opinion. Dave101 →talk  18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The Football template currently accepts NA, Template or List, for class, but they all put the article in Category:Non-article football pages and the corresponding Task Force category. However importance CANNOT currently take Template, NA or anything other than Top,High,Mid,Low. Anything other than Top, High,Mid,Low gets put in Category:Unknown-importance football articles, which can be a bit of a pain, so I'd support the use of a category Category:NA-importance football articles instead.
 * The use of 'unofficial' options varies from Wikiproject to Wikiproject; the official version 1.0 Assessment scheme does not make use of Cat/Category, Template, List or NA Paulbrock 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So, I feel that it would be a good idea to follow the official version of assessment. This would in fact promote consistency with regards to ALL WikiProjects. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Some related changes have been proposed at Template_talk:Football. Paulbrock 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to pick up this discussion as I'm currently evaluating a lot of German football articles and encountering the same problem. The actual solution is unsatisfying in my opinion. That is because I sometimes browse through the unevaluated articles and rate them. If you do that for class, the article gets moved to the appropriate category. While the same happens if you set an importance, articles ought to have no importance (aka non-articles) stay in the unevaluated category, cluttering that one. For a small project like German football that is not too bad, but if you want to evaluate articles from the General project on football it becomes annoying.

Proposal: An elegant and pretty simple (I guess) solution to that problem would be to create a NA-importance category and have all templates/categories/NA-class entities automatically move to the NA-importance category. Any opinions to that? Anyone like to do that, if nobody opposes? OdinFK (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Request
I'm sorry I don't know where to post this - but I was wondering if an assessment review could be done on the Coventry City F.C. page. It is listed as a Start page and I believe should have a higher rating as a result of it's recently improved content.Officially Mr X (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left some comments here. --Jameboy (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Argentine football
Hi,

I am about to launch Wikiproject:Argentine football, I need some help with setting up the Argentina=yes section in the football template and set up the facility to collect statistics like these. If someone could do this for me I would be extremely grateful and I will avoid destroying the template with my efforts. Could you let me know if it can be done on my talk page please? Kind regards King of the North East 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have now added Argentina into the template successfully (I Hope), could someone please give me a hand setting up the Statistics table, I have created the neccessary categories, but cant go any further as I am not an admin. CheersKing of the North East 20:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you need doing? Oldelpaso 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I can run through the steps necessary (basically create categories and assign them into the WP1.0 Assessment scheme - don't need admin permissions) and perhaps make it into a 'how-to' page somewhere? (Bit late now but I'll get on it tomorrow) Paulbrock 23:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like you did everything correctly already, King of the East. You just need to wait for the bot to run automatically (every 3 days or so - I've kicked it off for the first time for you,looks like only Maradona is tagged) the data can be found at Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Football_in_Argentina_articles_by_quality_statistics Paulbrock 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Top/High Importance
I feel that some teams should be allowed in the Top Importance category. The base criteria for top says "Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field.", for high it says "Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." I would argue that certain teams such as Real Madrid, Liverpool F.C., Barcelona, possibly also Manchester United, and various others, have achieved international notability, they are known across the whole world, and therefore are deserving of a place in the Top category. While I am not suggesting a mass migration of teams to that category, I feel that a few teams are as notable as the sport itself, certainly more so than say the article on Oceania Football Confederation. Currently the top Category does not allow for any teams at all. John Hayestalk 10:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to see more comprehensive guidance given. Where do John Motson, Graham Poll and Goodison Park fit into the importance scale, for example? --Jameboy 11:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * However I don't really thing major football clubs are "extremely important, even crucial" to football. Crucial football articles are definitely offered by the confederations, rules, positions and so on. I feel we should make it distinct. --Angelo 11:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is true, but in that case the criteria are conflicting, though I would dispute that Oceania Football Confederation is more crucial than say Real Madrid. As the most successful (internationally), and probably most notable club, I would suggest they are of far more interest to the reader than an article on the least successful confederation. I am not suggesting all major clubs should be top, but the very few most notable teams. John Hayestalk 11:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something like the following:


 * I would say that "Teams and who are notable through-out or outside of the football world" and "Teams with international notability" are virtually the same.  King of the North East  (T/C) 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've changed "well-known stadia" to "Internationally recognised stadia" above. For European stadia, this could be specified as 5-star or 4 and 5 star, although I notice Wembley isn't on the 5-star list. Presume the list is outdated? --Jameboy 12:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The list is probably correct - UEFA only issue ratings once a year IIRC so Wembley is not yet on it. Oldelpaso 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * True, I want somehow to be able to distinguish between top teams who are notable outside of traditional football areas, for example through their large fanbase in areas such as south-east Asia, or say in the case of Real Madrid through David Beckham, from other top teams such as Bayern Munich who while notable in Europe and internationally in footballing areas don't have the same notability elsewhere. John Hayestalk 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On what grounds are Real Madrid more notable than Bayern Munich? Both are multiple European champions, both have won their national championship more times than any other club, both occupy the upper echelons of football club rich lists. Their memberships are of similar size. In essence, an example of how putting some clubs as "top" importance is an exercise in subjectivity. Oldelpaso 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe Bayern wasn't the best example, though I would suggest (without any evidence) that Real have a far bigger fanbase, and are better known outside of Europe. For example you would be likely to find (though Beckham) many more articles on Real in the US, then on Bayern. John Hayestalk 14:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Many people here are forgetting that this is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. The articles are rated based on the importance of the subject at hand. The Oceania Football Confederation is far more important than any club in the world as it represents a football confederation made up of different national associations.

No matter how much money they have, how much they have achieved, or what kind of "smoke" they sell, clubs are simply that: clubs. No club in the world is that important in the world of football in the sense that it would be crucial to rate it so. Their national associations, which they are part of, are a step higher; then their continental associations, FIFA, and the sport itself and more...it's a long ladder. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Player assessment
I would say that a much more crucial factor to consider is the way that importance is determined in relation to players. This is all the guidance we seem to have: The main problems I have with this is that "Top-rated" and "world-class" can be seen as subjective terms, on who's authority does a player become top-rated or world class. Mid importance is far too wide ranging, from multi-award winning players such as Rolando Schiavi or Ashley Cole to players who have played a handfull of top flight games such as Sergio Romero or Matthew Bates. My suggestion would be to bring in much more specific criteria maybe something like this:
 * Top: N/A
 * High: Top-rated world-class players.
 * Mid: Players that have participated at international level or in a top-level league.
 * Low: Any other player.

I'm sure that there will be a number of editors who would prefer to stick to the vaguely worlded and loosley applied assessment criteria we have, but I feel that in order to get some consistency we need better defined criteria. Regards King of the North East  (T/C) 12:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * High = High achiever: World Cup Final players (match not tournament) international team and tournament record holders, multiple top flight top scorers and top flight title holders, multiple international title holders, league record holders and high importance club record holders (most apps or goals for teams rated as high importance) (example Daniel Passarella or Bobby Moore)
 * Mid =Decorated players (top level title winners), international footballers, league topscorers, 100+ top flight games, club record holders (most apps or goals for teams rated as mid importance) (example Fabricio Coloccini or Gareth Southgate)
 * Low = Players undecorated at top level, fewer than 100 apps at top level (example Matthew Bates or Sergio Romero)
 * I pretty much agree with that, though possibly not every single title holder, for example should every member of last season's Manchester United team be in high, say Tomasz Kuszczak? John Hayestalk 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry my mistake, I didn't see the multiple. John Hayestalk 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely I fail to imagine a Sanmarinese multiple top-flight title holder as "extremely notable within a particular continent". And surely Valerio Fiori (AC Milan third-choice keeper for years, 1 presence in 8 seasons at the club) is not a "high-level player". If you're talking about continental-level players, you are just wrong in involving domestic leagues in the matter, because they have mostly a nationwide notability, with a few exception for major leagues (I'd say England, Italy, Spain and, in a lesser extent, Germany, Portugal and France). --Angelo 17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Very tricky isn't it! I like "international or top league player" as criteria for Mid, it's relatively straightforward to check on each player's page.  For High, I don't think ALL players who have played in a World Cup final would get this, winners of FIFA World Player of the Year would be the sort of thing, unfortunately it only goes back 15 years!  Maybe someone (else!) could dig through the useful stuff found here  (reference for Pele being the best player ever) and come up with something covering the 20th century at least...Paulbrock 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I like all "international or top league player" be titled as mid-importance. Brazil for example had a qualifying season, in which their coach gave about 100 different players a cap. So if someone has played for the most successful team in the world is not necessarily notable. Same goes for league appearances.


 * Probably I'm a bit strict here, but my rule of thumb is to give mid-importance to players with 10 caps for major national teams. 300 top level league appearances also suffice. This sounds hard, but if you add put this debate into historical perspective you'll probably agree, that a player who amassed 100 Bundesliga appearance in 12 years for VfL Bochum, Energie Cottbus, and 1. FC Saarbrücken is probably not that notable. Anyway, these are my rules of thumbs for evaluation. I don't think strict rules should be established here. There are just too many ways for a player to become notable. By the way the player to be of Top importance has yet to be born, though I would not rule out, that there could be one. OdinFK (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Variants on Football
Where would games like Futsal and Beach Soccer rank in the importance scale? 2o-DeMoN-o8t*c*a*wp 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing of national team names
I don't know where else to bring this up; if there is another place, please direct me. I see a lot of articles being changed to say, for instance, 'English national team' rather than 'England national team.' Others state the name of the teams properly. I see the former as informal, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I gave an example recently in an edit summary...it is not 'American Navy,' it is 'United States Navy.' The proper name of the teams include the proper name of the country, as this is always used in scores, standings, etc. (check UEFA's website, for example). A news article or broadcaster may say 'the French' informally, but the team is 'France.' It seems as I participated in a short discussion on this before somewhere. 'The French national team' might sound more natural to a casual reader and cause them to edit it to read so, but it is incorrect.

Can we come to a consensus on this? I really don't know of the need for debate, as I think it's clear that the proper name for the country ought to be used, but didn't know if I had missed a previous discussion. - Slow Graffiti (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest asking this question at WT:FOOTY. Peanut4 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How to avoid subjective ratings?
As a relatively new Wikipedian, I was rather surprised to find, that Wikipedia apparently still struggle to find a perfect solution and answer to this question. The fact that I managed to find several examples of inaccurate "subjective ratings", and different assesment standards applied when comparing each national version of Wikipedia (ie. articles rated as FA in Sweden/Germany, would not stand a chance of reaching the FA rating by the English wikipedia), in my point of view really call for the Wikipedia assessment system to be improved.

My proposal is, that we need to write down a world wide Wikipedia standard for a perfect FA article, and to ensure objective ratings are applied in the assesment process, this standard should contain a scoreboard system, where 1 point is awarded each time the article comply with one of the defined parameters in the standard. In example, its possible to define 100 general quality parameters for a perfect article. In case some of them are more important than others, the international standard should then allocate in example 2p instead of 1p, for this specific "quality parameter". After having assesed the article according with the descriped standard in use, the reviewer can then in a very objective way calculate the overall "quality score" of the article. Of course with the quality category then showing and relating to this "quality score", so that articles with 100p are rated FA and articles with 80p-90p are rated GA.

With the proposed Quality scoreboard system in use, the assesment process would be far more objective, compared to the more subjective standard we currently use at Wikipedia. Moreover it would also help to encourage editors in the process of improving a certain article, if they can follow how the quality score of the article gradualy improves! If being assesed, and a GA article in example still fall short of the FA status, but yet has been improved compared to the last time it was assessed. Then it would help to encourage editors to show a score, that the article actualy has improved from 85p to 92p. So eventhough it still falls short of the 100p requirement for FA articles (due to perhaps 8 quality issues still remain to be solved), the quality has been visibly improved and recognized. Thus encouraging editors to continue the process with further improvements (despite of the first failed attempt to improve it to FA status). :-)

If some of you agree with the idea/proposal of creating a "Quality scoreboard system", I guess it might be a matter to also be further discussed at the main page of Wikipedia_talk for "article assesment" in general. For sure, I am curious to learn, just for a start, if you support the idea? If implemented, there would perhaps also be a call to create a specific "scoreboard standard" for some of the general type of articles. Perhaps a special "scoreboard rating system" should be applied for the assesment of all "sports" articles, while all "scientific" articles would need their own special "scoreboard rating system", etc. Would this be possible and a good idea? If yes, then perhaps someone of the more experienced Wikipedians here at the Wikiproject Football community, could make it a priority task to create the first example of this new "Quality scoreboard system" for all Football related articles?

Danish Expert (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Quality scale
The quality scale table currently uses the default grading scheme template examples from C-class and above. We should list football-specific articles as examples, as we did for the importance scale, so that editors may find it more relevant and useful for grading purposes.

The examples are listed above for consideration as replacements (C-class and above, excluding A-class since there is no current football-related article listed. If someone could recall a A-class version of an article, that would be very helpful indeed.). Emphasis was given to more recent assessments provided they are properly graded.

Opinions are appreciated, including proposal of better examples. LRD 04:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have a suggested replacement, but I'm surprised by the C-class example. The table says that C-class articles are "weak in many areas". What are those areas in this case? It appears to be thoroughly cited, it uses a standard layout and formatting, and the prose looks fine. The article is short. There could be content gaps - but then again, maybe the content that's there is basically all of the relevant information that's been printed about him in RS (as of 2012). If that were the case, then I can't even think of any GA criteria that it would fail. Colin M (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Reassessment of FC Tosno
I suggest an article FC Tosno be reassessed as it does not look like a stub. Oldstone James (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment of Abdul Ghani Shahad
I suggest an article Abdul Ghani Shahad be reassessed as it does not look like a stub.