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 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 Olympics}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Olympics}} 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?
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?
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 Olympics}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):
{{WikiProject Olympics|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:
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.
It is:
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
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; and
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
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.
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.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate 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 a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.
The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. 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).
Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting.
Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help.
it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.
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.
The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
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 be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.
The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
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 solve cleanup problems.
An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
A 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
Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more.
Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use.
A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria.
Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant.
Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant.
Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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.
Subject is crucial to a users understanding of the Olympics. This includes articles on the history of the Olympic movement, its governing bodies, and the main article for each Olympic Games.
Subject is highly important to the Olympics and/or has achieved worldwide recognition as being associated with the Olympic Games. This includes the main "(country) at the Olympics" article for each country, the main "(sport) articles at the Olympics" for each sport, opening ceremony articles, and biographies of athletes who won individual gold medals at multiple Olympics or revolutionized their sport. It also includes major historical events associated with the Olympics.
Subject achieved a high level of Olympic recognition, but is not necessarily known internationally and/or the recognition was short lived. This includes most individual gold medal winners, most athletes who won medals in multiple Olympics, national Olympic committees, specific "(sport) at the XXXX Olympics" articles, and closing ceremony articles. It also includes articles on major sporting controversies, unsuccessful Olympic bids, and the main Olympic stadium(s) for each Games.
Subject is a highly specific subtopic of a more notable topic, or is only or interest to a very limited number of people (such as one geographical area or diehard fans of a specific sport). This includes most athletes and coaches, most sporting venues, specific "(country) at the XXXX Olympics", specific "(sport) at the XXXX Olympics - (event)" articles, and most miscellaneous topics.
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.
Micheen Thornycroft - The article has been developed over time and it needs reassessment.
1992 Barcelona Olympics - The list of broadcasters doesn't seem to be accurate; some countries have 2 or more broadcasters (when it was known back then that only one exclusive broadcaster has the rights to air the games to a particular country/area) and some broadcasters didn't exist yet, like HD-specific channels that wasn't broadcasting back then.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Seems like a reasonable assessment. Contains a good amount of information on a number of issues relating to/arising from netball not being in the Olympics, including citations, and so is better than a start class. The article has the potential to be taken further, GA would be possible, I do however think the opening section "Olympic recognition" reads more like a general argument over the inclusion of women's sports in the Games and possibly shouldn't have quite such prominence in this netball article. Basement12(T.C)12:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AroundTheRings - This stub class article has been redone and needs to be reassessed -- Ngmejias (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2011
Could someone reassess Avery Brundage for importance? I think mid-importance for this guy who ran the Olympics for 20 years is a bit low. Should probably be at least high, possibly top.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Mayer Edited and vastly enlarged the page, including a bigger, better structured lead, "Career", and "Personal life" sections. It was probably not at Stub level when I got hold of it, but it certainly isn't now. --Luisftd (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
India national football team at the Olympics This following article is well written piece, thoroughly researched and presented without neglecting any important information. By FA Criteria, I hope it meets all 5 points that is well written, comprehensive as it does not neglect any vital or important information as the article is more leans to a historic piece, it accounts all sphere of events, well researched, allmost every part is provided with consistent citation, neutral and a stable article and no edit wars or vandalism or any such things happened till date. With that, it is well structured with a good lead and summary. Not lengthy and is very summarised about events happened. I hope the article deserves a FA status. Please review the article. Dey subrata (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
