Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge/Assessment
| Contract bridge articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 GA
|
1 | 1 | |||||
| B | 2 | 4 | 8 | 2 | 16 | ||
| C | 1 | 11 | 28 | 26 | 66 | ||
| Start | 6 | 35 | 177 | 405 | 4 | 627 | |
| Stub | 1 | 155 | 16 | 172 | |||
| List | 1 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 14 | ||
| Category | 104 | 104 | |||||
| Disambig | 8 | 8 | |||||
| Project | 18 | 18 | |||||
| Redirect | 4 | 27 | 31 | ||||
| Template | 42 | 42 | |||||
| Assessed | 10 | 53 | 218 | 599 | 199 | 20 | 1,099 |
| Unassessed | 42 | 42 | |||||
| Total | 10 | 53 | 218 | 599 | 199 | 62 | 1,141 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 4,481 | Ω = 5.08 | |||||
This forum provides additional guidelines for assessing the quality and importance of Wikipedia's contract bridge related articles.
While the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project to aid in recognizing excellence and identifying topics in need of further work. Ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPCB}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of:
and summarized automatically in the table at right. Clicking on a number in the table provides a listing of the articles included in that count; empty categories are simply omitted from the table.
- Quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProjects, who tag talk pages of articles.
- Two levels, GA and FA, are assessments made by external panels, rather than by Wikiprojects. Candidates are nominated by listing them at Good article candidates and Featured article candidates. Judgments are made according to the criteria at What is a good article? and Featured article criteria, and the results are listed at Good articles and Featured articles.
- Importance assessments are made at the WikiProjects level.
- Update table
The table's data is automatically regenerated every three days and so there will be a lag between more recent article updates and the table's counts.
Quality assessments
[edit]Quality classifications
[edit]An article's quality assessment is generated by adding the class parameter and its value to the {{WPCB}} banner on the article's talk page, i.e. {{WPCB|class=value}}. To specify an assessed class, the values in the first column of the following table are substituted for value to assign that quality rating to the article. For example, {{WPCB|class=B}} places the article in Category:B-Class Contract bridge articles.
If no class parameter value is added (either as {{WPCB}} or {{WPCB|class=}}), class=??? is assigned by default and places the article in the Category:Unassessed Contract bridge articles.
Class parameters for Category, Project and Template articles are assigned by default by the {{WPCB}} banner on the basis of the prefix to the article name, and so their parameter values need not be (but can be) explicitly added to the {{WPCB}} banner.
Quality grading scheme
[edit]The following table is generic and should be customized to suit contract bridge articles.
For a discussion on the grading scheme being developed for notable bridge people, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge/Notable people criteria
| 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 Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.
|
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. | |||
 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:
|
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. | |||
| GA |
The article has attained good article status. More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article criteria:
A good article is:
|
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. | |||
| 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:
|
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. Expert knowledge may be 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. | |||
| C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have 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. | |||
| Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and may require further reliable sources. More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. 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 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. | |||
| 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. | |||
| FL |
The article has attained featured list status. More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
|
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 | 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. |
Importance assessments
[edit]Importance classifications
[edit]An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WPCB}} project banner on its talk page: {{WPCB| ... | importance=??? | ...}}. The values in the first column of the following table may be substituted for ??? to assign that importance rating to the article. See Category:Contract bridge articles by importance for a summary of article membership counts in each of the importance classifications.
| Importance Parameter |
Importance Title |
Article is added to... | Importance Symbol |
|---|---|---|---|
| Top | Top importance | Category:Top-importance Contract bridge articles | Top |
| High | High importance | Category:High-importance Contract bridge articles | High |
| Mid | Middle importance | Category:Mid-importance Contract bridge articles | Mid |
| Low | Low importance | Category:Low-importance Contract bridge articles | Low |
| ??? | Unknown importance | Category:Unknown-importance Contract bridge articles | ??? |
| NA | Not Applicable importance | Category:NA-importance Contract bridge articles | NA |
Importance grading scheme
[edit]The following is a customized grading schemes. It requires further refinement and examples articles.
| Importance | Criteria | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Kindergarten |
| High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Factory Acts |
| Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | 0.999... |
| 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. | G cell |
| Importance | Criteria | Inclusion Examples | Exclusion Examples |
|---|---|---|---|
| In a broad generalization, it is proposed that we corrupt the Pareto principle so that articles of top and high importance constitute the 20% of all bridge articles that would sufficiently enlighten 80% of the readers. Assuming a mature level of say 750 contract bridge articles (there are about 650 as of January 2013), it suggests that no more than about 150 should be in the top two importance categories; say 50 and 100 in top and high respectively. Admitedly these are crude metrics but at least are reference points to be debated. The point is that assessing articles in the top and high categories requires some restraint lest the emphasis they imply becomes meaningless. | |||
| Top | Core topics about contract bridge. Generally, these topics are sub-articles of the main Contract bridge article, vital for a basic understanding of bridge or extremely notable to people outside the game. Topics of interest to an international audience. This category should be limited.
Inclusion criteria: Beginner/newcomer skill level introduction to contract bridge in general and on bidding, card play and scoring. Exclusion criteria: Articles on specific bridge conventions except those in almost universal use. All articles on people, championships, governing bodies and books and magazines. |
Rubber bridge, Duplicate bridge, Chicago, Laws of Duplicate Bridge, Bidding system, Bridge scoring, Bridge conventions | Splinter bid |
| High | Topics that are very notable within contract bridge, and not unheard of outside of it, and can be reasonably expected to be included in any print encyclopedia.
Inclusion criteria: Topics essential for someone who knows the basics of contract bridge at the beginner or intermediate level and who aspires to advanced or higher levels of understanding. Common card play techniques. Summaries of popularly used bidding systems. The most notable people in bridge - usually players and/or writers recognized internationally as world class - the most significant of those in a bridge Hall of Fame, but rarely administrators. People who, in their lifetime have achieved top 10 ranking by the World Bridge Federation. Books that are deemed classics. World championships and the most notable zonal, national and transnational competitions. Exclusion criteria: Topics on less frequently used or obsolete bidding systems and conventions. Rarely encounterd card play situations or techniques or topics at a deeper and more complex level of detail. Articles on bridge governing bodies. All local and regional championships, national championships of lesser note. People who may be in a bridge Hall of Fame but are not recognized internationally as world class. |
Acol, Simple squeeze, Ely Culbertson | Little Major, Stepping-stone squeeze, Nick Nickell |
| It may seem paradoxical to an editor who is an avid bridge enthusiast that the more complex a bridge topic is, the more likely it requires a foundation of knowledge of the game to be able to absorb it and the more likely it is of greater interest and importance to an advancing or expert player and of lesser interest or importance to a non-player, beginner or intermediate level player who constitute the majority of encyclopedia readership. A true enthusiast buys a bridge book and does not rely on an encyclopedia! | |||
| Mid | Topics that are reasonably notable on a national level within contract bridge without necessarily being famous or very notable internationally. Conventions that are used by a significant minority of players or by a high-importance pair. Card play techniques that are occasionally encountered. People who are in a bridge Hall of Fame (or its deemed equivalent status) and are recognized nationally but are not recognized as notable world class players or writers. People who are recognized internationally as notable adminstrators. | Serious 3NT, Fantunes | |
| Low | Topics of mostly local interest or those that are only included for complete coverage or as examples of a higher-level topic; peripheral or trivial topics. Conventions that are not common anywhere. Card play techniques that are rare outside of composed positions. People who are notable within a national bridge community but are not in a bridge Hall of Fame or its deemed equivalent status. | Hexagon squeeze, EHAA | |
| ??? | Topic has not been assessed | ||
| NA | Assessment is not applicable, not required | Category, Templates, Project | |
Application
[edit]After assessing an article's quality and/or importance, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.
Requesting an assessment
[edit]If you or others have made significant changes to an article since its last assessment and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please post your request at the talk page of the article and also list it below. The details of all assessment activity for an article belong with its talk pages. The list below is simply a secondary means to alert interested editors who may otherwise not be watching or visiting the page in question.
| Article | What has changed? | Requestor | Date | Reassessed (Y/N) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| enter name of article | enter your rationale for requesting a reassessment; in quality or importaance or both? | who are you? | date of request | Y/N |
Assessment log
[edit]| Contract bridge articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
November 10, 2024
[edit]Removed
[edit]- Richard Khautin (talk) removed.
November 6, 2024
[edit]Assessed
[edit]- WP:Contract bridge (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Removed
[edit]- Daniel Boye (talk) removed.