WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (22) talk  → Featured lists (97) talk  → Good articles (63) talk Outreach talk Peer review talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Naming conventions talk
Project organization Participants talk Large Userbox talk Project Userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball 2009 MLB team articles talk 2008 MLB team articles talk 2007 MLB team articles talk Team specific Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Baseball! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Baseball articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP: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 {{WikiProject Baseball}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Baseball articles by quality, Category:Baseball articles by importance, Category:Baseball articles needing attention, Category:Baseball past collaborations, and Category:Baseball past selected articles. The quality and importance ratings serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. There is also Category:Non-article Baseball pages) for things like redirect pages, templates, categories, images, etc.

Contents 1 Frequently asked questions 2 Instructions 2.1 Quality scale 2.2 Importance scale 3 Statistics 3.1 Current status 4 Requesting an assessment or reassessment

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated? 

As a member of the WikiProject Baseball, you can do it yourself. If you're unsure, list it in the requesting an assessment section below.

Who can assess articles? 

Any member of WikiProject Baseball is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.

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.

Where can I get more comments about my article? 

Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.

What if I don't agree with a rating? 

Relist it as a request or contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.

Aren't the ratings subjective? 

Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball directly.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Baseball}} project banner on its talk page. You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below.

This is the rating syntax (ratings and dates are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{WikiProject Baseball}}

• displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.

{{WikiProject Baseball|class=Stub|importance=Low}}

• all assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in. Leaving the other parameters off does not hurt anything.

{{WikiProject Baseball|class=Start|importance=Mid|attention=yes}}

• if an article needs immediate attention, add the attention tag and please leave talk notes as to why. "yes" is the only valid parameter here. If it doesn't need attention, leave the parameter off.

{{WikiProject Baseball|class=B|importance=High|attention=yes|past-selected=[[July]] [[2006]]|past-collaboration=[[April]] [[2006]]}}

• if an article has been the SATM or COTM, these tags get added in this format. This is the actual project tag of Philmont Scout Ranch.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Baseball articles)
• FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Baseball articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Baseball articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Baseball articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Baseball articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Baseball articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Baseball articles)
• List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Baseball articles)
• NA (for pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Baseball articles). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable.

Articles for which a valid class and/or importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Baseball articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

• Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance Baseball articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance Baseball articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Baseball articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance Baseball articles)

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of— (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.	L'incoronazione di Poppea (as of December 2009)
A	The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. More detailed criteria The article meets the A-Class criteria: Shortcuts: WP:ACLASS WP:A? Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Films).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help.	Cologne War (as of October 2009)
GA	The article has attained good article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout; (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	Typhoon Elsie (1989) (as of November 2009)
B	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. More detailed criteria The article meets the six B-Class criteria: The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	KV55 (as of November 2009)
C	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.	Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.	Architecture of Denmark (as of November 2009)
Start	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Geodia gibberosa (as of July 2009)
FL	The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions and alternative (alt) text if necessary. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available.	Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) (as of February 2009)
List	Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area.	There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader.	Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized.	List of aikidoka (as of June 2007)

[edit] Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance 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 reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of baseball. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the perspective of someone from that region.

Article importance grading scheme

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for Baseball, or is generally notable to people other than students of Baseball. They define and determine the subject of the Baseball WikiProject.	Baseball
High	Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of Baseball, but not necessarily outside it.	Lou Gehrig
Mid	Subject contributes to the total subject of the Baseball WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous.	At bats per home run
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Baseball, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic.	San Pedro de Macorís

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Baseball articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	2	6	11	3		22
	FL		1	27	59	9	96
	GA	2	9	20	25	7	63
	B	19	115	125	71	44	374
	C	10	53	221	213	85	582
	Start	63	361	1119	2163	1398	5104
	Stub	9	107	1031	8068	5998	15213
	List		93	87	174	427	781
	Assessed	105	745	2641	10776	7968	22235
	Unassessed		1	84	33	3148	3266
	Total	105	746	2725	10809	11116	25501

[edit] Requesting an assessment or reassessment

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 the peer review department instead.

Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM

1. Like this (and put "(re-)assessment request" in your edit summary of this assessment page), leave reasons for a reassessment.

1. Scott Feldman -- IMHO, this is now at least a B.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. José López (baseball) -- I extended it/cleaned it up. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Kenji Johjima -- I extended it/cleaned it up. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Ryan Rowland-Smith -- I extended it/cleaned it up. Also added references on unsourced info. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Rob Johnson (baseball) -- I extended it/cleaned it up. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Sean White -- I extended it/cleaned it up. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Doug Fister -- Has no rating. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Russell Branyan -- I extended it/cleaned it up. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Dustin Ackley -- I extended it/cleaned it up. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Andres Esquibel -- Has no rating.--Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Adam Moore -- Has no rating. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Erick Monzon -- Has no rating. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Brian Giles -- I extended it/cleaned it up. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Cha Seung Baek -- I extended it/cleaned it up. --Halvorsen brian (talk) 07:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)