Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Assessment

{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Rugby union articles by quality statistics}}

Welcome to the assessment department of the RU WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's rugby union articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

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

Frequently asked questions

; How do I add an article to the WikiProject? : Simply copy and paste the following code into the talk page of the article, there's no need to do anything else. One of the assessment team will do the rest.

{{WikiProject Rugby union

|class=

|importance=

|needs-infobox=

|needs-photo=

}}

:If the article lacks either an infobox or photo you could go an extra step and type yes after the equals sign ie |needs-infobox=yes For a full explanation of this template and it's other lesser used parameters go to Template:WikiProject Rugby union.

; 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 Rugby union WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.

; 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? : The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.

; 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.

; 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 statistics may be more accessible.

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Instructions

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

; {{WikiProject Rugby union| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

FA (adds articles to :Category:FA-Class rugby union articles)
A (adds articles to :Category:A-Class rugby union articles)
GA (adds articles to :Category:GA-Class rugby union articles)
B (adds articles to :Category:B-Class rugby union articles)
Start (adds articles to :Category:Start-Class rugby union articles)
Stub (adds articles to :Category:Stub-Class rugby union articles)
NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to :Category:Non-article rugby union pages)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in :Category:Unassessed rugby union articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

Top (adds articles to :Category:Top-importance rugby union articles)
High (adds articles to :Category:High-importance rugby union articles)
Mid (adds articles to :Category:Mid-importance rugby union articles)
Low (adds articles to :Category:Low-importance rugby union articles)

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=

class="wikitable" \|+ Article progress grading scheme
Label ! Criteria ! Reader's experience ! Editor's experience ! Examples
{{FA-Class}} {{tl\|FA-Class}} \| Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. \| Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. \| No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. \| Rugby World Cup All Blacks
{{A-Class}} {{tl\|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 the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. 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. \|
{{GA-Class}} {{tl\|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 good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. \| Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, 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. \| *Rugby union at the Summer Olympics
{{B-Class}} {{tl\|B-Class}} \| Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or 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. \| 2007 Rugby World Cup 2007 Six Nations Championship *Super 14
{{C-Class}} {{tl\|C-Class}} \| The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. {{grading scheme/table\|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 trivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. }} \| style="font-size:90%" \| Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. \| style="font-size:90%" \| Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. \| *Alfred St. George Hamersley (as of February 2010)
valign="top"
{{Start-Class}} {{tl\|Start-Class}} \| The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. 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 \| Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. \| Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. \| John Eales Matt Burke
{{Stub-Class}} {{tl\|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. \| May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. \| Any editing or additional material can be helpful. \| *Kings Park Stadium

class="wikitable"

|+ Article progress grading scheme

Label

! Criteria

! Reader's experience

! Editor's experience

! Examples

| Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.

| Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information.

| No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light.

| *Rugby World Cup
*All Blacks

| 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 the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. 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.

| 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 good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class.

| Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, 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.

| *Rugby union at the Summer Olympics

| Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or 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.

| *2007 Rugby World Cup
*2007 Six Nations Championship
*Super 14

| The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

{{grading scheme/table|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 trivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. }}

| style="font-size:90%" | Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.

| style="font-size:90%" | Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues.

| *Alfred St. George Hamersley
(as of February 2010)

valign="top"

| The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. 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

| Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere.

| Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built.

| *John Eales
*Matt Burke

| 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.

| May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.

| Any editing or additional material can be helpful.

| *Kings Park Stadium

=Importance scale=

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 followers of rugby union.

General notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country 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.

align=center class="wikitable"

!Status

!Template

!Meaning of Status

|align="center"|{{Top-Class}}

|This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.

|align="center"|{{High-Class}}

|This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.

|align="center"|{{Mid-Class}}

|This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.

|align="center"|{{Low-Class}}

|This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

None

|align="center"|None

|This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

=Importance standards=

Importance standards indicate to WikiProject Rugby Union members what editing priority should be given to certain articles. The top priority articles are those crucial to the understanding of the subject of rugby. Importance standards are not an absolute determination of the importance an article, but are a rough estimate of how frequently they are likely to be viewed.

This assessment guide has been updated as of July 8, 2010. Some articles may undergo reassessment as a result of this update.

Requesting an 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 the peer review department instead.

Jan Ellis - please assess as this page has moved way beyond Stub class. Lots of work has been added, including images, extensive rewriting, table, 40 additional sources, infobox. DocDee (talk) 04:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone please have a look at Joe Barakat, it is yet to be assessed. Feedback greatly appreciated 21/10/14

2009 Air New Zealand Cup - a lot of work gone into it, will be much appreciated if it is rated and see if improvements should be made.

Could somebody please reassess the Shute Shield article, I believe that it should be at least mid level importance rather than low level. There are French competitions of a lower standard that are higher rated as is Queensland Premier Rugby which is the equivalent competition (but arguably of a lower standard). Most ppl with a knowledge of Australian rugby would acknowledge that the Shute Shield competition is (ARC aside) the highest level of rugby in the country after Super 14. Soundabuser 03:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate reassessment of the revised article on John Hart (rugby coach), which is currently rated as a stub. Jimmy Pitt (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Could somone have a look at the various rugby Unions, England, Scotland, Argentina are all Top-class. Wales Rugby Union is just High. Irish Rugby Football Union is not even attached to WikiProject Rugby Union and therefore unclassified. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Army Navy Match - Extensive edits and modifications have been made. Msr iaidoka (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Would someone take a look at Moseley Rugby Football Club. It's not been assessed and I been making a quite a few changes etc recently anyway. Cheers! Dunk the Lunk (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please take a look at Tynedale R.F.C.. Don't think it's been assessed yet. Nkcgd 23:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Would appreciate assessment of Pontypridd RFC. Many hard hours of work have gone into it. I feel we're deserving of a B-class by now, at least. Thank you.--82.15.31.182 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. If anyone has a minute to assess Gianluca Faliva. Not that it will be higher than a Start level, but. Thank you! McMarcoP (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I also reviewed Greenock Wanderers RFC. Could anyone check it please? Thanks. McMarcoP (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I reviewed (and, especially, sourced) Michael Jones (rugby union) and Tom Voyce. Could anyone give them a check please? McMarcoP (talk) 09:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, me again! I completely rewrote (and sourced) Philippe Bernat-Salles. Could anyone re-assess it please? McMarcoP (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that Marzio Innocenti should be rated higher than a stub. Anybody can please review it and tell me what is missing (besides a picture, I still can't find a free one)? Thank you. McMarcoP (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Winscombe RFC recently created, has had an assessment under the Somerset Wiki project and they've inserted an assessment panel for the Rugby project. Thanks. Sjrees Sjrees (talk) 09:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rugby union in Kenya Thanks Pdtyrrell (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have just created a page for Mark Donaldson (rugby player) the former All Black player, I have made an initial classification based on the criteria here, but I am not a member of the project and have no expertise in rugby. I would appreciate someone taking a quick look and confirming my assessment. As a 35 time player for New Zealand, including captaincy for one match, he certainly meets the notability criteria and I believe rates high importance based on the project's criteria. Its probably bordeline between stub class and start class - I've erred on the side of stub class, but project members will be able to make a better judgement of this. I created the page to avoid bots linking the French Wikipedia article (about the NZ rugby union player) to the English Wikipedia page on Trooper Mark Donaldson, VC which, despite appearing on a list not to be linked, still gets linked with annoying regularity. I've done the initial hackwork, but I will leave the rest to the enthusiasts and experts. Cheers, AusTerrapin (talk) 15:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

GHA Rugby Club - I have updated this page in line with comments made following a previous assessment and would appreciate if it could be reassessed. Many Thanks. 15:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Melbourne Rebels - The Rebels are about to play 4 practices matches (2 v Tonga, 1 v Fiji and 1 v the Crusaders) next month. Would appreciate a quick assessment (and some guidance for lifting it out of start class) before the Super season starts. Thanks! Comes.amanuensis (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Women's international rugby union - After five years work, this is now "complete" - ie. this is the only source listing every women's international or tournament ever played. There is also a Women's International Rugby Union Sevens page, which would benefit from a review, though in this case not all tournaments have been traced.Johnlbirch (talk)

Leinster Rugby - Extensive content added and nominated for good article status if this could be reviewed please. Feedback welcome. 14 July 2012

:Assessment done. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Saracens F.C. - significant additions by various editors over last year - in comparison with the example "B" and "C" entries given, I believe Saracens should be reassessed as a B from its current C ranking - please could it be reviewed

:There's no way I can endorse an increase from C-class. The article has far too much of a recentist bias, focusing too much on recent history and not enough on the past. Furthermore, the article could be more well-rounded in terms of its content. I know it's a football article, but see Manchester United F.C. for how circumspect an article about a sports team can be. – Pee Jay 09:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Rob Louw - should this not be at least in the C-class? Its Start assessment seems low, if compared to John Eales, the example provided of a Low-class. Thanks! - DocDee (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

:Increased to C ranking as it had much information that I believe justified an upgrade.Tomh903 (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Morné du Plessis - lots of work done since last assessment, including images, extensive rewriting, tables, many additional sources, layout clean-up. - DocDee (talk) 17:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

:Increased to C.Tomh903 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ronan O'Gara - I think this should be in the B class.I have added a lot more information and images to the article in recent times.Tomh903 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Logan Basson - Born 1989. South African rugby union player. No edits made by me. Currently Unassessed by WP:Rugby Union. Thank you in advance. --Buspirtraz (talk) 06:43, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Participants

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

{{user|Barryjjoyce}}
{{User|Cometstyles}}
{{User|Sumtuodomino}}
{{user|Cvene64}}
{{user|Dale Arnett}}
{{user|Hamedog}}
{{user|Hoopydink}}
{{user|Shudda.nz}}
{{user|GringoInChile}}
{{user|Greenman}}
{{user|Samdada}}
{{user|PeemJim86}}
{{user|SauliH}}
{{user|HitmanStanners}}
{{user|Tomh903}}

Assessment

Rugby union

Log

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

Statistics

Updated automatically

{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Rugby union articles by quality statistics}}

Category:WikiProject Rugby union