Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 25 65
Start 6 34 176 384 4 604
Stub 1 2 176 17 196
List 1 3 4 6 14
Category 96 96
Disambig 8 8
Project 18 18
Redirect 4 27 31
Template 34 34
NA 16 16
Assessed 10 53 218 598 199 21 1,099
Unassessed 42 42
Total 10 53 218 598 199 63 1,141
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 4,506 Ω = 5.11
Main page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment
Main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ

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.

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.

Run the update bot now.

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.

Class
Value		 Class
Title		 Article is added to... Class
Symbol
Main articles:
FA Featured articles Category:FA-Class Contract bridge articles FA
A Class A Articles Category:A-Class Contract bridge articles A
GA Good articles Category:GA-Class Contract bridge articles GA
B Class B articles Category:B-Class Contract bridge articlesB
C Class C articles Category:C-Class Contract bridge articlesC
Start Start-class articles Category:Start-Class Contract bridge articlesStart
Stub Stub-class articles Category:Stub-Class Contract bridge articlesStub
List class articles:
FL Featured list-class articles Category:FL-Class Contract bridge articles FL
List List-class articles Category:List-Class Contract bridge articlesList
Administrative articles:
Category Category-class articles Category:Category-Class Contract bridge articlesCategory
Project Project-class articles Category:Project-Class Contract bridge articlesProject
Template Template-class articles Category:Template-Class Contract bridge articlesTemplate
Redirect Redirect-class articles Category:Redirect-Class Contract bridge articlesRedirect
NA Not Applicable-class articles Category:NA-Class Contract bridge articlesNA
??? Unassessed-class articles Category:Unassessed Contract bridge articles???

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

Grading Scheme
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. 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.
 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:
 A

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 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:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 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:
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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.
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.

WikiProject article importance scheme
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


Draft for Contract Bridge Articles
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.


December 22, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 21, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 20, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 19, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 18, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

December 17, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]
  • Bridge (disambiguation) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Disambig-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Grand Slam (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Disambig-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Slam (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Disambig-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Transfer (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Disambig-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

References

[edit]

Endnotes

[edit]

See also

[edit]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Contract_bridge/Assessment&oldid=1170204844"