Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Assessment

Inquiry

What about template or category talk, namespaces? Is it necessary to add NA to importance? For example a template talk page would look like this; {{Football|class=Template|importance=NA|}} and a category talk page would look like this; {{Football| class=Cat|importance=NA}} Any comments about this is greatly welcomed. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely talk pages don't need to be assessed at all? Especially since the assessment template relating to the article itself will be on the talk page already..... ChrisTheDude 13:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

As above, I don't think it's necessary. The "class" parameter is meant for a quality rating rather than for a "article/category/template" rating. I think "NA" in the "class" parameter is sufficient for all the non-article pages. DrKiernan 13:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh! sorry! I meant template AND category pages; NOT talk pages. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Making NA for all the category and namespaces would be too general. If template or category is added in the class parameter, the assessment template would be more accurate. Of course NA could be added to the importance parameter. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 13:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I this would be unnecessary, to be honest. Class is for a rating of an article's quality, N/A articles show those those that are non-articles, which is sufficient in my opinion. Dave101→talk  18:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Football template currently accepts NA, Template or List, for class, but they all put the article in Category:Non-article football pages and the corresponding Task Force category. However importance CANNOT currently take Template, NA or anything other than Top,High,Mid,Low. Anything other than Top, High,Mid,Low gets put in Category:Unknown-importance football articles, which can be a bit of a pain, so I'd support the use of a category Category:NA-importance football articles instead.

The use of 'unofficial' options varies from Wikiproject to Wikiproject; the official version 1.0 Assessment scheme does not make use of Cat/Category, Template, List or NA Paulbrock 22:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So, I feel that it would be a good idea to follow the official version of assessment. This would in fact promote consistency with regards to ALL WikiProjects. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Some related changes have been proposed at Template_talk:Football. Paulbrock 10:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to pick up this discussion as I'm currently evaluating a lot of German football articles and encountering the same problem. The actual solution is unsatisfying in my opinion. That is because I sometimes browse through the unevaluated articles and rate them. If you do that for class, the article gets moved to the appropriate category. While the same happens if you set an importance, articles ought to have no importance (aka non-articles) stay in the unevaluated category, cluttering that one. For a small project like German football that is not too bad, but if you want to evaluate articles from the General project on football it becomes annoying.

Proposal: An elegant and pretty simple (I guess) solution to that problem would be to create a NA-importance category and have all templates/categories/NA-class entities automatically move to the NA-importance category. Any opinions to that? Anyone like to do that, if nobody opposes? OdinFK (talk) 17:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Request

I'm sorry I don't know where to post this - but I was wondering if an assessment review could be done on the Coventry City F.C. page. It is listed as a Start page and I believe should have a higher rating as a result of it's recently improved content.Officially Mr X (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I've left some comments here. --Jameboy (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Argentine football

Hi,

I am about to launch Wikiproject:Argentine football, I need some help with setting up the Argentina=yes section in the {{football}} template and set up the facility to collect statistics like these

Football in England articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	Other	???	Total
FA		10	43	93				146
FL			3	132				135
GA		22	218	417				657
B	2	62	336	280				680
C	2	44	1,164	1,712			1	2,923
Start		42	3,734	16,501	1		2	20,280
Stub		1	1,897	20,630			634	23,162
List			12	608			9	629
Category					3,692	1		3,693
Disambig					11			11
File					366			366
Portal					2			2
Project					33			33
Redirect					369			369
Template					918			918
NA					10			10
Other					14			14
Assessed	4	181	7,407	40,373	5,416	1	646	54,028
Unassessed			1				3	4
Total	4	181	7,408	40,373	5,416	1	649	54,032

. If someone could do this for me I would be extremely grateful and I will avoid destroying the template with my efforts. Could you let me know if it can be done on my talk page please? Kind regards King of the North East 19:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now added Argentina into the template successfully (I Hope), could someone please give me a hand setting up the Statistics table, I have created the neccessary categories, but cant go any further as I am not an admin. CheersKing of the North East 20:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you need doing? Oldelpaso 21:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I can run through the steps necessary (basically create categories and assign them into the WP1.0 Assessment scheme - don't need admin permissions) and perhaps make it into a 'how-to' page somewhere? (Bit late now but I'll get on it tomorrow) Paulbrock 23:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you did everything correctly already, King of the East. You just need to wait for the bot to run automatically (every 3 days or so - I've kicked it off for the first time for you,looks like only Maradona is tagged) the data can be found at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Football_in_Argentina_articles_by_quality_statistics Paulbrock 20:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Top/High Importance

I feel that some teams should be allowed in the Top Importance category. The base criteria for top says "Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field.", for high it says "Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent." I would argue that certain teams such as Real Madrid, Liverpool F.C., Barcelona, possibly also Manchester United, and various others, have achieved international notability, they are known across the whole world, and therefore are deserving of a place in the Top category. While I am not suggesting a mass migration of teams to that category, I feel that a few teams are as notable as the sport itself, certainly more so than say the article on Oceania Football Confederation. Currently the top Category does not allow for any teams at all. John Hayes^talk 10:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd also like to see more comprehensive guidance given. Where do John Motson, Graham Poll and Goodison Park fit into the importance scale, for example? --Jameboy 11:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

However I don't really thing major football clubs are "extremely important, even crucial" to football. Crucial football articles are definitely offered by the confederations, rules, positions and so on. I feel we should make it distinct. --Angelo 11:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but in that case the criteria are conflicting, though I would dispute that Oceania Football Confederation is more crucial than say Real Madrid. As the most successful (internationally), and probably most notable club, I would suggest they are of far more interest to the reader than an article on the least successful confederation. I am not suggesting all major clubs should be top, but the very few most notable teams. John Hayes^talk 11:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something like the following:

Label	Base criteria	Football-related criteria	Examples
Top	Article is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for articles that have achieved international notability within its subject or field.	Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, positions, confederations. Teams and who are notable through-out or outside of the football world. Competitions notable worldwide.	Football (soccer) Offside (football) UEFA Real Madrid FIFA World Cup
High	Article is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Teams with international notability. Top-level leagues, awards and competitions. Top-rated world-class players and managers.	Bayern Munich La Liga FIFA World Player of the Year UEFA Cup Roberto Baggio Alex Ferguson
Mid	Article is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	Teams with nationwide notability. Players, managers or officials that have participated at international level or in a top-level league. Mid-level leagues. Internationally recognised stadia.	U.S. Città di Palermo Gareth Barry David Moyes Graham Poll Swiss Super League Wembley
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.	Any other player, manager, team or other football-related article. Football-related lists, season articles.	Leek Town F.C. Roberto Biffi Goodison Park John Motson List of Arsenal F.C. players

John Hayes^talk 12:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say that "Teams and who are notable through-out or outside of the football world" and "Teams with international notability" are virtually the same. King of the North East (T/C) 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've changed "well-known stadia" to "Internationally recognised stadia" above. For European stadia, this could be specified as 5-star or 4 and 5 star, although I notice Wembley isn't on the 5-star list. Presume the list is outdated? --Jameboy 12:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The list is probably correct - UEFA only issue ratings once a year IIRC so Wembley is not yet on it. Oldelpaso 12:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

True, I want somehow to be able to distinguish between top teams who are notable outside of traditional football areas, for example through their large fanbase in areas such as south-east Asia, or say in the case of Real Madrid through David Beckham, from other top teams such as Bayern Munich who while notable in Europe and internationally in footballing areas don't have the same notability elsewhere. John Hayes^talk 14:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

On what grounds are Real Madrid more notable than Bayern Munich? Both are multiple European champions, both have won their national championship more times than any other club, both occupy the upper echelons of football club rich lists. Their memberships are of similar size. In essence, an example of how putting some clubs as "top" importance is an exercise in subjectivity. Oldelpaso 14:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Bayern wasn't the best example, though I would suggest (without any evidence) that Real have a far bigger fanbase, and are better known outside of Europe. For example you would be likely to find (though Beckham) many more articles on Real in the US, then on Bayern. John Hayes^talk 14:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Many people here are forgetting that this is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. The articles are rated based on the importance of the subject at hand. The Oceania Football Confederation is far more important than any club in the world as it represents a football confederation made up of different national associations.

No matter how much money they have, how much they have achieved, or what kind of "smoke" they sell, clubs are simply that: clubs. No club in the world is that important in the world of football in the sense that it would be crucial to rate it so. Their national associations, which they are part of, are a step higher; then their continental associations, FIFA, and the sport itself and more...it's a long ladder. Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Player assessment

I would say that a much more crucial factor to consider is the way that importance is determined in relation to players. This is all the guidance we seem to have:

• Top: N/A
• High: Top-rated world-class players.
• Mid: Players that have participated at international level or in a top-level league.
• Low: Any other player.

The main problems I have with this is that "Top-rated" and "world-class" can be seen as subjective terms, on who's authority does a player become top-rated or world class. Mid importance is far too wide ranging, from multi-award winning players such as Rolando Schiavi or Ashley Cole to players who have played a handfull of top flight games such as Sergio Romero or Matthew Bates. My suggestion would be to bring in much more specific criteria maybe something like this:

• High = High achiever: World Cup Final players (match not tournament) international team and tournament record holders, multiple top flight top scorers and top flight title holders, multiple international title holders, league record holders and high importance club record holders (most apps or goals for teams rated as high importance) (example Daniel Passarella or Bobby Moore)
• Mid =Decorated players (top level title winners), international footballers, league topscorers, 100+ top flight games, club record holders (most apps or goals for teams rated as mid importance) (example Fabricio Coloccini or Gareth Southgate)
• Low = Players undecorated at top level, fewer than 100 apps at top level (example Matthew Bates or Sergio Romero)

I'm sure that there will be a number of editors who would prefer to stick to the vaguely worlded and loosley applied assessment criteria we have, but I feel that in order to get some consistency we need better defined criteria. Regards King of the North East (T/C) 12:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with that, though possibly not every single title holder, for example should every member of last season's Manchester United team be in high, say Tomasz Kuszczak? John Hayes^talk 12:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry my mistake, I didn't see the multiple. John Hayes^talk 12:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Sincerely I fail to imagine a Sanmarinese multiple top-flight title holder as "extremely notable within a particular continent". And surely Valerio Fiori (AC Milan third-choice keeper for years, 1 presence in 8 seasons at the club) is not a "high-level player". If you're talking about continental-level players, you are just wrong in involving domestic leagues in the matter, because they have mostly a nationwide notability, with a few exception for major leagues (I'd say England, Italy, Spain and, in a lesser extent, Germany, Portugal and France). --Angelo 17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Very tricky isn't it! I like "international or top league player" as criteria for Mid, it's relatively straightforward to check on each player's page. For High, I don't think ALL players who have played in a World Cup final would get this, winners of FIFA World Player of the Year would be the sort of thing, unfortunately it only goes back 15 years! Maybe someone (else!) could dig through the useful stuff found here [1] (reference for Pele being the best player ever) and come up with something covering the 20th century at least...Paulbrock 15:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like all "international or top league player" be titled as mid-importance. Brazil for example had a qualifying season, in which their coach gave about 100 different players a cap. So if someone has played for the most successful team in the world is not necessarily notable. Same goes for league appearances.

Probably I'm a bit strict here, but my rule of thumb is to give mid-importance to players with 10 caps for major national teams. 300 top level league appearances also suffice. This sounds hard, but if you add put this debate into historical perspective you'll probably agree, that a player who amassed 100 Bundesliga appearance in 12 years for VfL Bochum, Energie Cottbus, and 1. FC Saarbrücken is probably not that notable. Anyway, these are my rules of thumbs for evaluation. I don't think strict rules should be established here. There are just too many ways for a player to become notable. By the way the player to be of Top importance has yet to be born, though I would not rule out, that there could be one. OdinFK (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Variants on Football

Where would games like Futsal and Beach Soccer rank in the importance scale? 2o-DeMoN-o8_t*c*a*wp 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing of national team names

I don't know where else to bring this up; if there is another place, please direct me. I see a lot of articles being changed to say, for instance, 'English national team' rather than 'England national team.' Others state the name of the teams properly. I see the former as informal, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I gave an example recently in an edit summary...it is not 'American Navy,' it is 'United States Navy.' The proper name of the teams include the proper name of the country, as this is always used in scores, standings, etc. (check UEFA's website, for example). A news article or broadcaster may say 'the French' informally, but the team is 'France.' It seems as I participated in a short discussion on this before somewhere. 'The French national team' might sound more natural to a casual reader and cause them to edit it to read so, but it is incorrect.

Can we come to a consensus on this? I really don't know of the need for debate, as I think it's clear that the proper name for the country ought to be used, but didn't know if I had missed a previous discussion. - Slow Graffiti (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I suggest asking this question at WT:FOOTY. Peanut4 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

How to avoid subjective ratings?

As a relatively new Wikipedian, I was rather surprised to find, that Wikipedia apparently still struggle to find a perfect solution and answer to this question. The fact that I managed to find several examples of inaccurate "subjective ratings", and different assesment standards applied when comparing each national version of Wikipedia (ie. articles rated as FA in Sweden/Germany, would not stand a chance of reaching the FA rating by the English wikipedia), in my point of view really call for the Wikipedia assessment system to be improved.

My proposal is, that we need to write down a world wide Wikipedia standard for a perfect FA article, and to ensure objective ratings are applied in the assesment process, this standard should contain a scoreboard system, where 1 point is awarded each time the article comply with one of the defined parameters in the standard. In example, its possible to define 100 general quality parameters for a perfect article. In case some of them are more important than others, the international standard should then allocate in example 2p instead of 1p, for this specific "quality parameter". After having assesed the article according with the descriped standard in use, the reviewer can then in a very objective way calculate the overall "quality score" of the article. Of course with the quality category then showing and relating to this "quality score", so that articles with 100p are rated FA and articles with 80p-90p are rated GA.

With the proposed Quality scoreboard system in use, the assesment process would be far more objective, compared to the more subjective standard we currently use at Wikipedia. Moreover it would also help to encourage editors in the process of improving a certain article, if they can follow how the quality score of the article gradualy improves! If being assesed, and a GA article in example still fall short of the FA status, but yet has been improved compared to the last time it was assessed. Then it would help to encourage editors to show a score, that the article actualy has improved from 85p to 92p. So eventhough it still falls short of the 100p requirement for FA articles (due to perhaps 8 quality issues still remain to be solved), the quality has been visibly improved and recognized. Thus encouraging editors to continue the process with further improvements (despite of the first failed attempt to improve it to FA status). :-)

If some of you agree with the idea/proposal of creating a "Quality scoreboard system", I guess it might be a matter to also be further discussed at the main page of Wikipedia_talk for "article assesment" in general. For sure, I am curious to learn, just for a start, if you support the idea? If implemented, there would perhaps also be a call to create a specific "scoreboard standard" for some of the general type of articles. Perhaps a special "scoreboard rating system" should be applied for the assesment of all "sports" articles, while all "scientific" articles would need their own special "scoreboard rating system", etc. Would this be possible and a good idea? If yes, then perhaps someone of the more experienced Wikipedians here at the Wikiproject Football community, could make it a priority task to create the first example of this new "Quality scoreboard system" for all Football related articles?

Danish Expert (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Listed examples for quality scale scheme

Quality scale

The quality scale table currently uses the default grading scheme template examples from C-class and above. We should list football-specific articles as examples, as we did for the importance scale, so that editors may find it more relevant and useful for grading purposes.

WikiProject content quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. 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. 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: 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. 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. 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.	Peru national football team <font=80%>(as of April 2014)
FL	The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured list criteria: 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. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; 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. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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.	List of Ipswich Town F.C. statistics and records (as of February 2008)
A	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.	Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014)
GA	The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria A good article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	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.	Abby Wambach (as of January 2014)
B	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. More detailed criteria 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. 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. 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 be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	Gareth Bale (as of April 2014)
C	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.	Women's association football (as of November 2013)
Start	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.	Steven Kinniburgh (as of March 2012)
Stub	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.	Ji Xiang (as of January 2012)
List	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.	List of A.S. Roma players (as of February 2008)

The examples are listed above for consideration as replacements (C-class and above, excluding A-class since there is no current football-related article listed. If someone could recall a A-class version of an article, that would be very helpful indeed.). Emphasis was given to more recent assessments provided they are properly graded.

Opinions are appreciated, including proposal of better examples. LRD 04:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a suggested replacement, but I'm surprised by the C-class example. The table says that C-class articles are "weak in many areas". What are those areas in this case? It appears to be thoroughly cited, it uses a standard layout and formatting, and the prose looks fine. The article is short. There could be content gaps - but then again, maybe the content that's there is basically all of the relevant information that's been printed about him in RS (as of 2012). If that were the case, then I can't even think of any GA criteria that it would fail. Colin M (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Reassessment of FC Tosno

I suggest an article FC Tosno be reassessed as it does not look like a stub. Oldstone James (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Reassessment of Abdul Ghani Shahad

I suggest an article Abdul Ghani Shahad be reassessed as it does not look like a stub.