Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject on Football, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Association football 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 {{WikiProject 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 {{WikiProject Football}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject 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.


An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Football}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject 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.

Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance scale

Article importance grading scheme
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.
No biographical articles.
Association football
Offside (football)
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.
Real Madrid CF
Lionel Messi
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.
Mid-level leagues.
Players or managers that have participated in a World Cup or for five years in a top league.
A.S. Roma
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 team. Most players and managers. Football-related lists, season articles. Leek Town F.C.
Roberto Biffi
List of Arsenal F.C. players


Current status

The proportion of all articles with an assessed project banner is:

88.5% assessed (estimate: some more article talk pages may still need a banner)


The proportion of all articles with known importance is:

77.5% known importance (estimate: some more articles may still need importance to be assessed)


FIFA national football teams coloured by article class (25 December 2016)

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.






 Done @CoolieCoolster: given the (probable) small size of source info, I suspect this is substantial coverage. Desperately needs some inline references though. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Jagiellonia Białystok I know this article has been reviewed before but I have made extensive additions to the article and added many sources. Any feedback would be helpful. Thanks! Matt918 (talk) 2:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done @Matt918: looking better, now C class. It needs quit a few inline refs and will be then B class. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Jordan Cook - This article has been expanded considerably over the past eight months and should be reassessed as it is definitely no longer Start-Class. Thank you. LTFC 95 (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done @LTFC 95: agree - now C class - write a nice lead summarising the article and can be a B class I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done @LampGenie01: It is already assessed, correctly, as list-class. If you want detailed comments, may I suggest Wikipedia:Peer review. Thanks, C679 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Assessed as C-class. The lead could do with expanding and some more inline citations are required, particularly in the Rostov sections, to move up to B-class. Kosack (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


Add new requests above this line


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

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA