Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the assessment department of the Tennis WikiProject. This department was made to assess and grade the quality and importance of articles related to tennis. The main purpose of the Assessment Department is to recognise excellent articles and to identify articles that might need more work or could be improvement.

Contents 1 Frequently Asked Questions 2 Instructions 2.1 Quality Scale 2.2 Importance Scale 2.3 Assessment Requests

[edit] Frequently Asked Questions

How can I get an article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of the Tennis WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article. Please note that the FA class needs to be assessed by the community, and need consensus for promotion.

Someone put a {{WP-Tennis}} template on an article, but it's not a novel or related article. What should I do?

Feel free to remove the template, if it is improperly placed.

[edit] Instructions

The assessment of an article is made with the class and importance perimeters, with the {{WP-Tennis}} banner. It is generated like this.
{{WP-Tennis|importance=????|class=????}}

[edit] Quality Scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criterion	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.	Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
FL {{FL-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists.	Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information.	No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible.	FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.	Durian (as of March 2007)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.	Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.	Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and references.
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful picture or graphic multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article	Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.	Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

[edit] Importance Scale

Article importance grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, associations. The Grand Slam tournaments as well as the Tennis Masters Cup.	Tennis Women's Tennis Association Australian Open
High	Former or current world number ones, Grand Slam tournament winners, ATP Masters Series tournaments.	Andre Agassi Michael Chang Canada Masters
Mid	Former or current Top 20 players, International and International Series Gold category tournaments.	Alicia Molik Nicolas Kiefer Kremlin Cup
Low	Any other Tennis-related articles. Futures and ATP Challenger Series tournaments.	Maret Ani

[edit] Assessment Requests

June 2008

• Rafael Osuna Spent some time improving this article, and I think it's come a long way, though it needs someone to sift through back issues of Sports Illustrated (et al.) and add a dozen more refs. Goldenband (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ana Ivanovic should at least have a High importance class now instead of Mid, as the subject is now both World No.1 and a Grand Slam winner.

March 2008

• Mohammed al Ghareeb Only low importance, to be sure, but I'm hoping for Start-Class (or maybe even B?). Goldenband (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Y Done Start, well sourced but too short for "B". Some minor pov issues in the first paragraph, but otherwise a good article. BanRay 11:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

• 2008 Australian Open, the Australian Open tournament Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Y Done BanRay 11:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

December 2007

• Erik Van Dillen, new article recently rescued from speedy deletion
• Official (Tennis), noticed a sort of "gap" in coverage of this topic, so I wrote an article. Please critique--Greenguy1090 (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Some more requests; most of these tennis players have been ranked in the top 5:

• Herbert Flam, U.S. tennis player, 2-time USTA boys 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 5
• Brad Gilbert, U.S. tennis player, highest world ranking # 4
• Paul Goldstein, U.S. tennis player, USTA boys 16s & 2-time 18s singles champion
• Brian Gottfried, U.S tennis player, USTA boys 12s & 2-time 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 3
• Jim Grabb, U.S. tennis player, highest world doubles ranking # 1
• Julie Heldman, U.S. tennis player, US girls 15s & 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 5
• Ilana Kloss, South African tennis player, highest world doubles ranking # 1
• Aaron Krickstein, U.S. tennis player, USTA boys 16s & 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 6
• Tom Okker, Dutch tennis player, highest world ranking # 3 in singles, and # 1 in doubles
• Dick Savitt, U.S. tennis player, highest world ranking # 2
• Harold Solomon, U.S. tennis player, US boys 18s singles champion, highest world ranking # 5

--Epeefleche 04:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC) Y Done BanRay 11:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

July 2007

• Can someone assess Jesse Levine and Audra Cohen, if possible. Tx.--Epeefleche 05:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Could The Championships, Wimbledon get rated please? Cheers --81.179.123.35 12:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

June 2007

I's like to see Mark Keil get assessed. Danny McCluskey 13:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessed. Comments on talk. --Dark Falls ^talk 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

March 2007

Tennis (B class/Top importance). Let's get this article to FA status! I don't know when it was assessed last, so it would be good to get some notes and see where we currently stand. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 23:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Roger Federer (b/Top) I have for awhile wanted to get this to at least GA class. I am not sure exactly how many people noticed the previous request, as there was only one very short response, so I would, like Spyder_Monkey, also like to see where it stands. --tennisman ^{sign here!} 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Been approved a lot since I read it last. Has plenty of citations and reliable info, but lacks the quality of an FA. Maybe try it out for GA? --Dark Falls ^talk 06:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)