Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on Football, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's football (soccer) 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 programme.
The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{Football}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Football articles by quality and Category:Football articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
- 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 {{Football}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 3. Someone put a {{Football}} 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 football WikiProject 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 Wikipedia: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.
[edit] Instructions
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{Football}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):
- {{Football| class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values for the class parameter may be used:
The following values for the importance parameter may be used:
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed football articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance football articles. The class and importance 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. | Tourette Syndrome
(as of March 2009) |
 A | The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject 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. | Batman (1989 film)
(as of October 2008) |
 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. | Usain Bolt
(as of May 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. | Jammu and Kashmir
(as of September 2007) |
 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. | Exeter Cathedral
(as of June 2008) |
 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. | List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records (as of February 2008) |
 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 A.S. Roma players (as of February 2008) |
[edit] Importance scale
Article importance grading scheme [ v • d • e ] | Label | Base criteria | Football-related criteria | Examples |
| Top | Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field. | Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, positions, confederations, etc. | Association football
Offside (football)
UEFA |
| High | Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Teams with international notability. Top-level leagues, awards and competitions. Top-rated world-class players and managers. | AFC Ajax
Roberto Baggio
UEFA Champions League |
| Mid | Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | Teams with nationwide notability. Players or managers that have participated at international level or in a top-level league. Mid-level leagues. | U.S. Città di Palermo
Swiss Super League
Gareth Barry |
| Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. | Any other player, manager or team. Football-related lists, season articles. | Leek Town F.C.
Roberto Biffi
List of Arsenal F.C. players |
[edit] Statistics
[edit] Current status
Football
articles | Importance |
| Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total |
| Quality |
| FA | 2 | 13 | 24 | 13 | | 52 |
| FL | | 4 | 13 | 79 | | 96 |
| A | | | 1 | | | 1 |
| GA | 1 | 13 | 73 | 66 | 3 | 156 |
| B | 11 | 163 | 324 | 146 | 155 | 799 |
| C | 2 | 65 | 409 | 427 | 65 | 968 |
| Start | 19 | 260 | 3049 | 7522 | 3024 | 13874 |
| Stub | 3 | 92 | 4372 | 16486 | 46388 | 67341 |
| List | | 4 | 80 | 612 | 115 | 811 |
| Assessed | 38 | 614 | 8345 | 25351 | 49750 | 84098 |
| Unassessed | | 9 | 18 | 31 | 9721 | 9779 |
| Total | 38 | 623 | 8363 | 25382 | 59471 | 93877 |
[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Peer review instead.
List of Oldham Athletic A.F.C. managers. I recently started the article and it has been rated as a List. With my recent diff, I added a large bit of text to the article and believe it deserves to be re-assessed. I am a member of the Football WikiProject, but am unsure of the sufficient rating. Ɔrassic (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- Lists have only two ratings. List or Featured List. The prose needs more referencing, but other than that I would start a formal peer review, before heading for WP:FLC. Peanut4 (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- I've just added a few more references. Still trying to find more... Ɔrassic (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Kansas City Wizards season 2008 please see what rating this deserves. Morry32 (talk) 02:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Would like a outsiders opinion on Halmstads BK, as a supporter i already know lots about the club, but would like hear from one that isnt. --> Halmstad, Talk to me 22:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
US Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program I've reordered most of the page, deleted a lot of the plugs for USYS, and added information. Like to hear some thoughts on it. Boylanj64 (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Buckie Thistle I have been editing this page for a number of months now and over time i have managed to build it up quite a bit. The main changes i made over the months were the additions of sections on last season and this season, aswell as a squad list and club honours section. However at the top of the page it says "The neutrality of this article is disputed." and im not sure how to go about sorting this out? Thanks in advance. Malky
Bath City F.C. It has been over a year since this was assessed as start quality. A lot of improvement has happened since. Could someone re-assess and give help on how to improve further? Thanks! Maniacgeorge (talk) 18:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- Still start class. It needs far better inline referencing. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on RC Strasbourg for the last days. what do you think about it ? How can I improve it ? Maybe my English is not good enough... Thanks ! Zitelli67 (talk) 19:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Following several useful suggestions, the article has been enriched and completed with separate lists of players, managers and seasons. I would be very grateful should someone have some time to look again at it. Zitelli67 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that it should, at least, be considered B class.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Shimizu S-Pulse. I've been working on this article on and off for several months and am wondering how far off B Class we are. I've attempted to provide citations for all non-common knowledge and information which requires it, and am wondering what needs to be added / improved on before reaching B Class. Any feedback appreciated. --Lets Enjoy Life (talk) 05:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
St. Louis Athletica. I noticed someone had added a WikiProject Football box to the discussion page on the 5th, but there were no rankings on it (so if that's the results of a previous assessment request, sorry, I'm still kind of a newbie here). Anyway, the article's grown from ~6k to ~10k since then, so if it could have some classes assigned to it, that'd be great. Thanks! CyMoahk (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Horst Buhtz spent four hours translating and referencing the article today. Reassessed it to C myself, as I don't think it's Stub or Start, but I'd appreciate some input.Madcynic (talk) 21:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Apertura and Clausura. I've added Template:Football, but I'm not sure where this article belongs in priority. It's a major structure in Mexico and Central and South America, and was formerly used in Japan and Korea. It may also need an infobox of some kind if it is considered to be a major association football policy. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Chorley FC I have updated this article and continue to do so. I've added a history section, although it is currently incomplete and will require more information (I plan to do so over the coming week or so). I've brought the article more into line with the Club manual of style and feel it may warrant consideration for start-class or higher, although it probably needs someone else to decide if it goes higher than start-class.Fetler (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Liam Watson (footballer). I have been creating this page of the last few days and think i have done enough for it to be moved from my sandbox. I have sourced and reference some of the information however arguably could do with some more citations. It does need a bit more information, especially regarding his playing career. Just needs its initial assessment. Thanks Uksam88 (talk) 00:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the Derby County page has improved enough to be considered above Start Class, so could someone take a look? AnOrdinaryBoy (talk) 11:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at FC Norchi Dinamo Tbilisi to examine it so it can be ready for people to work on Georgia soccer clubs. Thank you Rakuten06 (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I again request an assessment of Patrick Kisnorbo as article still hasn't been reviewed for over a week. Please also assess the article Paul Henderson (footballer). Wolcott (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've done a lot of work on several pages related to Luton Town F.C., I'd like them all re-assessed:
Cheers, Cliftonian (talk) 09:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'm requesting an assessment for Emerald City Supporters, thank you. Yukata Ninja (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi: I have substantially updated the Longwell Green Sports FC pages. I have moved it from Stub to Start status but I would like an independant viewpoint to verify this change. Jeff
Hi, I have a question about articles such as Olympiacos F.C. in Europe, Liverpool F.C. in Europe, FC Barcelona in Europe, Manchester United F.C. in Europe (I saw it as an article in talkpage) etc. are they considered to be an article or a list? I particularly mean باشگاه فوتبال پرسپولیس در آسیا (Persepolis F.C. in Asia in Persian) on fa.wiki. I know you don't know Persian, but I think you can Judge. WP:footy on fa.wiki is not very active and has a few members, so I asked here. I nominated it for Good article, and some users say it is a list. Is it a list or an article? thanks Amirreza talk 12:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- looks like a list to me at the moment. It will help if there is a better opening paragraph like the other articles you mentioned. Perhaps a summary of achievements, high and low points during each season, each campaign run in Asia. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Peru national football team. Article is almost ready to be an FA. A good assesment to classify it as A class from the project would probably help.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi,
Major changes have been made primarily by me, but also by some other Wikipedia user to the FK Sarajevo article. I would really appreciate an assessment. Thank you in advance. --Stlunatic071 (talk) 17:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Could another editor please take a look at Joe Ledley. Personally I think it it can move up to at least the next level but I would like another opinion on it. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 16:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Add new requests above this line
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.
