Olympics articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	1	4	5	2		12
	FL		4	12	14	1	31
	GA	2	5	12	14	3	36
	B	6	16	19	13	5	59
	C		19	27	14	15	75
	Start	1	138	487	653	151	1430
	Stub		157	3522	1068	753	5500
	List		11	58	29	5	103
	Assessed	10	354	4142	1807	933	7246
	Unassessed			1	110	1579	1690
	Total	10	354	4143	1917	2512	8936

Welcome to the assessment department of the Olympics WikiProject, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Olympics-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 program.

The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{OlympicsWikiProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Olympics articles by quality and Category:Olympics articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

[edit] FAQ

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 {{OlympicsWikiProject}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a {{OlympicsWikiProject}} 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 WikiProject Olympics 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 {{OlympicsWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{OlympicsWikiProject|class=???|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter. Please note that you must type them exactly as below as they are case-sensitive:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Olympics articles)
• FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class Olympics articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Olympics articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Olympics articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Olympics articles)
• C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Olympics articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Olympics articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Olympics articles)
• NA (for pages where assessment is unnecessary, such as templates; adds items to Category:NA-Class Olympics articles)

If a rating is not assigned, the article will be filed in Category:Unassessed Olympics articles. The class should be assigned according to the grading scheme.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter. Please note that you must type them exactly as below as they are case-sensitive:

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

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

[edit] Quality scale

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: 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

[edit] Statistics

Olympics articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	1	4	5	2		12
	FL		4	12	14	1	31
	GA	2	5	12	14	3	36
	B	6	16	19	13	5	59
	C		19	27	14	15	75
	Start	1	138	487	653	151	1430
	Stub		157	3522	1068	753	5500
	List		11	58	29	5	103
	Assessed	10	354	4142	1807	933	7246
	Unassessed			1	110	1579	1690
	Total	10	354	4143	1917	2512	8936

[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.

1. 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay - 244 fully organized and correctly used ref templates, 17 Commons images (excluding flags), written according to manual of style, 129 KB, and is still rated Start class. --haha169 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   To just briefly comment on this article, this article has made much headway, but there are two things I would like to see before this rating goes any higher. The first is that the relay is not actually finished yet, so it would make sense to wait until its done before any rating is changed. Second, the page is very jumbled, and could use a good look-through and restructure (albeit a brief one would be sufficient for me to give it a B-class ranking). Jared (t)  22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

   That is a good idea. Lets wait until the relay is over, and go through a massive re-organization. Possibly a creation of a new article as well. --haha169 (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

   Torch relay is complete. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Mutiny of the Matoika. Recently split off from an article about the ship USS Princess Matoika (ID-2290). Would like to have an WP:OLYMPICS assessment, particularly as to importance. Thanks in advance. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

   That is a wonderful article. To summarize, I had never heard of the incident before in my life, but now I feel as though I am fully aware of what went on. There is no question in my mind that this article is at least B-class, and I was going to suggest that you should definitely take it to GA, but you've already made the nomination, which was pleasing to see! I have no doubt that it will get that classification, and after that is done, and perhaps a few more touch ups are done, I would have no problem being one person to recommend an A-class ranking. It is not quite there yet, though, but I'd have to reread it to give editing suggestions. As for importance, I think that Mid-importance is good, given the scope of this project, and even though I was tempted to say Low (and someone can overrule me on this), I think that it "notable within its own field," although a case can be made that it is not "significant within its own field" (Low). Jared (t)  01:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3. Cycling at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's road race - Just expanded on this in-line with the Men's road race format which has just achieved FA, women's is still rated as Start class! Thaf (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
4. Swimming at the 1980 Summer Olympics - Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay Trying to promote it to FL, I need a baseline. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 01:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
5. Add new requests above

[edit] Log

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here.