Welcome to the assessment department of the College Football WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's college football 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. College football
articles | Importance | | None | Total | | Quality |  FA | 21 | 21 | | FL | 19 | 19 |  A | 2 | 2 |  GA | 120 | 120 | | B | 561 | 561 | | C | 428 | 428 | | Start | 4471 | 4471 | | Stub | 12135 | 12135 | | List | 219 | 219 | | Assessed | 17976 | 17976 | | Unassessed | 169 | 169 | | Total | 18145 | 18145 | The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:College football articles by quality and Category:College football articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. [edit] Frequently asked questions - How do I add an article to the College football WikiProject?
- Just add {{WikiProject College football}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the College Football WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- 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?
- This does not exist for this project yet. Perhaps you could join the project and create a peer review system?
- What if I don't agree with a quality 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.
- What if I don't agree with an importance rating?
- If you believe an item is mis-classed or it's class has since changed, please list it in the Requesting an assessment with your reasons. Please see the importance scale below and make sure your claims follow the criteria listed.
- 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!
- How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
- A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
- Can I review my own article?
- You may not rate your own articles. New articles should be added to the peer review section of assessment. Large changes to articles that may change the quality should be added to the Requesting an assessment section. Articles that may need a change in Importance status should be listed in the Importance review section.
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 project coordinators directly. [edit] Instructions An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax): - {{WikiProject College football| class= }} (This is currently the only option)
While assessing articles, please rate the class with a capital letter. This will insure uniformity on the template. The following values may be used for the class parameter: Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed college football articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below. [edit] Quality scale WikiProject article quality grading scheme | 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. | Brazilian cruiser Bahia
(as of November 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:
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.
- 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 NCAA Division II football programs
(as of March 2009) |  Category | Any category falls under this class. | Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. | Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. | Category:College football bowls |  Disambig | Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. | Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. | 1997 Fiesta Bowl |  Portal | Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. | Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. | Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. | Portal:College football |  Template | Any template falls under this class. The most common types of template include infoboxes and navboxes. | Different types of template serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. | Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. | Template:NCAA football seasons |  NA | Any non-article page that fits no other classification. | The page contains no article content, and is probably not useful to any casual reader. | Look out for mis-classified articles. Currently many NA-class articles need to be re-classified. | | [edit] Additional classes in use | Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | Project
{{Project-Class}} | Not an article about a specific topic, but related to the administration of the project. | Informs the reader about some aspect of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. | Project members keep the article up-to-date as needed. | Wikipedia:WikiProject College football | File
{{File-Class}} | An image or other file related about the project. | | Ensure fair-use rationale, and such are applicable. | File:Cornell's 1904 Varsity Football Team.jpg | Redirect
{{Redirect-Class}} | Any redirection page falls into this category. | The reader is redirected to the correct page, either from a common mispelling, common mistake (e.g. Category:2006 NCAA Division I-A football season vs Category:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season), or from a specific title to an aggregate article (e.g. 1882 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team redirects to Early history of Minnesota Golden Gophers football). | Keep redirects up-to-date. If redirect is changed to an article of its own, update assessment class accordingly. | Category:2005 NCAA Division I FBS football season | Needed
{{Needed-Class}} | Important article that does not exist yet, or exists only as a redirect. | Hits either a blank page or is redirected to an existing article. | Create the article! | 2010 Sugar Bowl
(as of February 2009) | Future
{{Future-Class}} | Article about a future event. | Informative, as far as what is known about the event. May change as more information becomes available. | Update as needed. Change to Current-Class as event starts, or reassess after event has occurred and article is updated accordingly. | 2010 Rose Bowl
(as of March 2009) | Current
{{Current-Class}} | Article about an event in progress. | Article changes as event progresses and more information becomes available. | Update as needed. When event is complete and article is stable and up-to-date, reassess. | 2008 NCAA Division I FBS football season
(as of December 2008) | [edit] Importance scale For various reasons, importance scale criteria are not included in Wikiproject College football labels. [edit] Requesting an 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 by adding |reassess=yes to the talk page. New articles do not need to be listed here unless they have gone unrated for more than 2 weeks. Please be sure to add new articles to the assessment table.
[edit] Statistics [edit] Monthly changes All figures given for the end of each month | July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | | FA | 0 | 0.00 % | 1 | 0.09 % | 1 | 0.08 % | 1 | 0.08 % | 1 | 0.07 % | 1 | 0.06 % | 1 | 0.05 % | 1 | 0.05 % | | A | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 1 | 0.05 % | 1 | 0.05 % | | GA | 2 | 0.20 % | 2 | 0.18 % | 4 | 0.34 % | 3 | 0.24 % | 3 | 0.22 % | 5 | 0.30 % | 6 | 0.33 % | 9 | 0.43 % | | B | 66 | 6.90 % | 124 | 11.24 % | 131 | 11.22 % | 137 | 11.29 % | 144 | 10.73 % | 162 | 9.82 % | 188 | 10.18 % | 212 | 10.17 % | | Start | 123 | 12.87 % | 280 | 25.39 % | 321 | 27.48 % | 327 | 26.93 % | 362 | 26.97 % | 481 | 29.15 % | 592 | 32.07 % | 673 | 32.29 % | | Stub | 121 | 12.66 % | 256 | 23.21 % | 319 | 27.31 % | 344 | 28.34 % | 431 | 32.12 % | 610 | 36.97 % | 705 | 38.19 % | 847 | 40.64 % | | Unassessed | 644 | 67.36 % | 440 | 39.89 % | 392 | 33.56 % | 402 | 33.11 % | 401 | 29.88 % | 391 | 23.70 % | 353 | 19.12 % | 341 | 16.36 % | | Total | 956 | 1,103 | 1,168 | 1,214 | 1,342 | 1,650 | 1,846 | 2,084 | | | March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | August 2007 | September 2007 | October 2007 | | FA | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.06 % | 5 | 0.15 % | 5 | 0.15 % | | A | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 2 | 0.06 % | 1 | 0.03 % | 2 | 0.06 % | | GA | 13 | 0.50 % | 15 | 0.54 % | 17 | 0.58 % | 18 | 0.60 % | 19 | 0.62 % | 18 | 0.55 % | 16 | 0.48 % | 18 | 0.53 % | | B | 245 | 9.43 % | 249 | 9.01 % | 254 | 8.73 % | 259 | 8.60 % | 264 | 8.68 % | 268 | 8.20 % | 269 | 8.08 % | 273 | 8.10 % | | Start | 931 | 35.82 % | 957 | 34.64 % | 990 | 34.03 % | 1,032 | 34.26 % | 1,036 | 34.07 % | 1,058 | 32.37 % | 1,081 | 32.49 % | 1,095 | 32.49 % | | Stub | 1,405 | 54.06 % | 1,508 | 54.58 % | 1,579 | 54.28 % | 1,685 | 55.94 % | 1,720 | 56.56 % | 1,728 | 52.88 % | 1,753 | 52.69 % | 1,759 | 52.20 % | | Unassessed | 3 | 0.12 % | 32 | 1.16 % | 67 | 2.30 % | 16 | 0.53 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 192 | 5.88 % | 202 | 6.07 % | 218 | 6.47 % | | Total | 2,599 | 2,763 | 2,909 | 3,012 | 3,041 | 3,268 | 3,327 | 3,370 | | | November 2007 | December 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | May 2008 | June 2008 | | FA | 5 | 0.15 % | 9 | 0.20 % | 10 | 0.07 % | 14 | 0.09 % | 9 | 0.06 % | 8 | 0.05 % | 9 | 0.06 % | 9 | 0.06 % | | FL | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 9 | 0.06 % | 9 | 0.06 % | 13 | 0.08 % | 13 | 0.08 % | | A | 2 | 0.06 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | | GA | 18 | 0.52 % | 23 | 0.52 % | 43 | 0.29 % | 61 | 0.41 % | 71 | 0.47 % | 73 | 0.48 % | 74 | 0.48 % | 76 | 0.49 % | | B | 298 | 8.67 % | 310 | 7.02 % | 362 | 2.46 % | 427 | 2.87 % | 438 | 2.91 % | 437 | 2.89 % | 439 | 2.87 % | 442 | 2.86 % | | Start | 1,260 | 36.66 % | 1,308 | 29.63 % | 2,184 | 14.82 % | 2,495 | 16.78 % | 2,602 | 17.26 % | 2,628 | 17.39 % | 2,667 | 17.43 % | 2,687 | 17.40 % | | Stub | 1,844 | 53.65 % | 2,444 | 55.36 % | 6,196 | 42.04 % | 10,339 | 69.55 % | 10,509 | 69.71 % | 10,519 | 69.60 % | 10,663 | 69.68 % | 10,774 | 69.78 % | | Unassessed | 10 | 0.29 % | 321 | 7.27 % | 5,944 | 40.33 % | 1,530 | 10.29 % | 1,438 | 9.54 % | 1,439 | 9.52 % | 1,438 | 9.40 % | 1,440 | 9.33 % | | Total | 3,437 | 4,415 | 14,739 | 14,866 | 15,076 | 15,113 | 15,303 | 15,441 | | | July 2008 | August 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | November 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | | FA | 10 | 0.06 % | 10 | 0.06 % | 11 | 0.07 % | 12 | 0.08 % | 13 | 0.08 % | 14 | 0.09 % | 16 | 0.10 % | 16 | 0.10 % | | FL | 15 | 0.10 % | 15 | 0.10 % | 15 | 0.10 % | 17 | 0.11 % | 17 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.11 % | | A | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 1 | 0.01 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 1 | 0.01 % | 0 | 0.00 % | | GA | 81 | 0.52 % | 87 | 0.56 % | 85 | 0.55 % | 89 | 0.57 % | 89 | 0.56 % | 89 | 0.55 % | 91 | 0.56 % | 95 | 0.58 % | | B | 443 | 2.86 % | 446 | 2.87 % | 452 | 2.90 % | 461 | 2.94 % | 462 | 2.91 % | 466 | 2.90 % | 472 | 2.89 % | 472 | 2.88 % | | C | 0 | 0.00 % | 26 | 0.17 % | 38 | 0.24 % | 61 | 0.39 % | 68 | 0.43 % | 70 | 0.43 % | 76 | 0.47 % | 78 | 0.48 % | | Start | 2,726 | 17.61 % | 2,747 | 17.67 % | 2,778 | 17.83 % | 2,874 | 18.33 % | 2,906 | 18.32 % | 2,986 | 18.55 % | 3,043 | 18.65 % | 3,055 | 18.61 % | | Stub | 10,796 | 69.73 % | 10,822 | 69.60 % | 10,779 | 69.18 % | 10,822 | 69.04 % | 10,941 | 68.98 % | 11,000 | 68.35 % | 11,035 | 67.61 % | 11,040 | 67.26 % | | Unassessed | 1,411 | 9.11 % | 1,396 | 8.98 % | 1,423 | 9.13 % | 1,339 | 8.54 % | 1,366 | 8.61 % | 1,450 | 9.01 % | 1,568 | 9.61 % | 1,640 | 9.99 % | | Total | 15,482 | 15,549 | 15,582 | 15,675 | 15,862 | 16,093 | 16,320 | 16,414 | | | March 2009 | April 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | | FA | 18 | 0.11 % | 20 | 0.12 % | 20 | 0.12 % | 20 | 0.11 % | 21 | 0.12 % | 21 | 0.12 % | 21 | 0.12 % | | FL | 18 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.10 % | 17 | 0.10 % | 16 | 0.09 % | 16 | 0.09 % | 16 | 0.09 % | | A | 1 | 0.01 % | 2 | 0.01 % | 2 | 0.01 % | 2 | 0.01 % | 2 | 0.01 % | 3 | 0.02 % | 3 | 0.02 % | | GA | 98 | 0.59 % | 101 | 0.60 % | 102 | 0.59 % | 105 | 0.60 % | 107 | 0.61 % | 107 | 0.60 % | 116 | 0.65 % | | B | 469 | 2.83 % | 492 | 2.90 % | 529 | 3.08 % | 534 | 3.06 % | 547 | 3.11 % | 560 | 3.17 % | 558 | 3.13 % | | C | 118 | 0.71 % | 220 | 1.30 % | 308 | 1.79 % | 335 | 1.92 % | 366 | 2.08 % | 398 | 2.25 % | 407 | 2.28 % | | Start | 3,102 | 18.69 % | 3,455 | 20.38 % | 4,130 | 24.04 % | 4,212 | 24.17 % | 4,253 | 24.19 % | 4,342 | 24.54 % | 4,400 | 24.70 % | | Stub | 11,055 | 66.61 % | 11,210 | 66.14 % | 11,883 | 69.16 % | 11,985 | 68.76 % | 11,992 | 68.21 % | 11,965 | 67.63 % | 11,980 | 67.24 % | | List | 119 | 0.72 % | 127 | 0.75 % | 189 | 1.10 % | 195 | 1.12 % | 199 | 1.13 % | 201 | 1.14 % | 205 | 1.15 % | | Unassessed | 1,598 | 9.63 % | 1,304 | 7.69 % | 1 | 0.01 % | 25 | 0.14 % | 79 | 0.45 % | 80 | 0.45 % | 111 | 0.62 % | | Total | 16,596 | 16,949 | 17,182 | 17,405 | 17,582 | 17,693 | 17,817 | [edit] Worklist and log Click here for the complete log.
|
