Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gymnastics/Assessment

Importance scale
Trying to think of a way of making the importance guidelines clear. My thinking, and I think this should be more widely discussed would be that: For biographies: Given this, Gymnasts can still be rated as top importance, and it gives a set of guidelines that can be applied.
 * If the gymnast has competed at an international level, then they get a baseline "low" importance (If they haven't competed Internationally, then they probably don't belong on Wikipedia, per WP:ATHLETE)
 * If they have an element named after them in their discipline's code of points, then move them up a level
 * If they are a national champion, or a medallist at international competition, then they move up a level
 * If they have been part of a gymnastics related scandal (Doping, Age issues, etc.), then they move up a level

For non-biographies, I guess it's not so clear, obviously Gymnastics and the sub-disciplines are Top priority, and I've been applying High importance to apparatus within it; But I'm unsure how to rate elements, Maybe Mid?

What do you think? -- ratarsed (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that is all sound. For the gymnasts, I'd also add that since we're in the Olympic run-up right now, anyone who has been named as a 2008 Olympic team member, particularly for the top teams in contention, should probably be given temporary priority. Those are the articles people will be searching for in the coming month, so it makes sense to try to get them in order.


 * For elements, I'm not sure either. My first instinct is to put them as 'low,' simply because there are so many other articles to work on. I agree that the apparatus should be top priority.DanielEng (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd put elements higher than individual gymnasts. Especially in the run-up to the Olympics, I think it's important to get articles and details up on individual elements (even if it's just List Of Gymnasts Elements On The Balance Beam or List Of Gymnastics Skills By Originator), and as many images/animations of them we can get (not very likely, but I live in hope. Anyone want to volunteer to look through flickr and ask for donations?) If a gymnast does an element really really well and the commentator starts gushing, I'd like readers to be able to find details and more info in their friendly online encyclopedia. :)


 * I'd also add another level and bump up any gymnast who is an Olympic medalist. (Maybe two levels for AA gold medalists?) Winning an Oly medal is something that should make them extra-notable compared to other gymnasts, imho. Kolindigo (talk) 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I've rated all 700 odd gymnastics biography stubs per my original thoughts, and at present most of the biographies are for Olympic medallists, so probably best not promote them automatically to a minimum of high (you'd run out of levels for those with moves in the code of points and controversy); I'd also think that given such a short competitive age range, that the annual world championships are equal weighting to the Olympics, but that's just an opinion... -- ratarsed (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Revised proposal
It occurs to me that perhaps a better way of doing it would be to assign importance by total FIG world cup points, maybe 100 or more (ever) would warrant Mid importance (and, say, 1000 or more for high importance), rather than just medaling at an international competition? If you don't know how there points system works, I found a handy reference at http://www.fedintgym.com/rules/docs/09-wcup/wcup0501-e.pdf -- ratarsed (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Natalia Shaposhnikova
I don't really think she is high importance but she has international medals and an element named after her. Should she be high or medium?

Maybe if they have been retired for more than 20 years demote them a level? I don't know if that would work.  Maddie talk 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

example quality
Maybe we should have the examples link to diffs instead of current articles. Probably at the time of rating, by a respected rater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.33.250 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)