Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Basketball Clipart.svg WikiProject
College Basketball
Main page talk
Portal talk
Master Table talk
Yearly team pages format talk
Assessment talk
Active editors
Project banner talk
Templates talk
Project category talk
Research sources talk
Yearbook references talk
Important Articles
2017–18 NCAA DI Season talk
2017–18 Rankings talk
2018 DI Tournament talk
Project Userbox talk
CBB Welcome Template talk

Welcome to the assessment department of the College Basketball WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's college basketball articles.

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

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I add an article to the College basketball WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject College basketball}} 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 Basketball 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 its 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.


An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject College basketball}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject College basketball| class=??? | importance=???}} (These are currently the only options)

While assessing articles, please rate the class and importance 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 basketball articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

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.

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance scale[edit]

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 or fans of college basketball. Furthermore, there are always exceptions to every rule so editors should use their best judgment rather than rigorously following the guidelines.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country, state 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.

  • Core
  • Teams
    • The main basketball article of the top basketball programs in modern times (i.e. teams that have multiple top 10 finishes - e.g. Kentucky Wildcats basketball)
      • HIGH
    • The main basketball article of all other Division I programs.
      • MID
    • The main basketball article of Division II and lower programs.
      • LOW
    • An article on any specific team season that won a national title (e.g. 1972–73 UCLA Bruins men's basketball team).
      • HIGH
    • An article on the specific team that made the main post season tournament (e.g. 2008–09 Gonzaga Bulldogs men's basketball team).
      • MID
    • An article on any other specific team's single season
      • LOW
  • Players & Coaches
    • An article on a specific person in the college basketball hall of fame or who is a recipient of a major college award
      • HIGH
    • Historic person considered fundamental to the understanding of college basketball
      • HIGH
    • Any head coach who won the National Championship.
      • HIGH
    • Any head coach with multiple appearances in the main post-season tournament.
      • MID
    • A player who was considered a "star" and/or won less notable awards
      • MID
    • An article on any other specific player, coach or person
      • LOW
  • Facilities and Traditions
    • An article on a basketball stadium of historical importance (e.g. a Final Four host)
      • MID
    • An article on any other basketball stadium or facility.
      • LOW
    • An article on a specific rivaly or a specific historic game.
      • LOW
    • An article on a very well known team tradition, mascot, saying, etc.
      • MID
    • Any other team tradition, mascot, saying, etc.
      • LOW
    • An article on a major college basketball award (e.g. most national awards).
      • HIGH
    • An article on a regional, conference or lesser known college basketball award.
      • MID
    • An article on specific year's award(s).
      • LOW
    • An article on a Division II or lower award.
      • LOW
  • Conferences

Requesting an assessment[edit]

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. 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.

  1. Auburn Tigers men's basketball
  2. John Stockton Tapered (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  3. Joe Dooley
  4. Add articles here!

Importance review section[edit]

If you believe an item is incorrectly classified in importance or its importance has changed, please feel free to list it below along with your justification.

  1. Add articles here!

Peer Review[edit]

Grading scheme[edit]

The following grading scheme and classification system follow the criteria established by Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

Sample Table[edit]

This table can be copied as is and used as a basis for an entire new type, but for most cases, just copy a row in a table already there to add your new article assessment, and refer to this table to understand the meaning of the columns.

Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by
Put a link to the article here assessment date
Use ~~~~~
Use the color scheme codes below for background color, and quality assessment title Use the color scheme codes below for background color, and importance assessment title Explain further why you give this quality and importance rating, highlight additional areas of concern Put your userid here
Use ~~~

If you don't know how to add or assess an article at these lists, please post at the project talk page instead. Your collaboration will be added here shortly.

Codes and meanings[edit]

Article progress grading scheme
Status Cell Color
Needs opinion #ffffff
Not started #888888
Stub #ff5555
Start class #ffa07a
B-Class #ffee00
GA-Class #66ff66
A-Class #90ee90
FA-Class #3399ff
Top #ff00ff
High #ff88ff
Mid #ffccff
Low #ffeeff


Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by


Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by


Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by

General Basketball & Miscellanious[edit]

Article Assessed Quality Importance Pending tasks Assessed by


Raw counts[edit]

This is too new to have stats. Created July 5, 2006.

Monthly changes[edit]

This is too new to have stats. Created July 5, 2006.


Click here for the complete log.