Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
WikiProject National Basketball Association
This project identifies, organizes and improves articles relating to the National Basketball Association on Wikipedia.
12722 articles (6 Featured articles, 82 Featured lists, 138 Good articles) as of January 9  

This assessment page shows the results of recent assessments, shows the quality scale, and shows the importance scale.

Assessment results

[edit]
Contact with WP NBA
Article Date Quality Importance Comments
Atlanta Hawks July 3, 2015 C High
Boston Celtics July 3, 2015 C Top
Brooklyn Nets July 3, 2015 C High
Charlotte Hornets July 3, 2015 B High
Chicago Bulls July 3, 2015 B Top
Cleveland Cavaliers July 3, 2015 C High
Dallas Mavericks July 3, 2015 C High
Denver Nuggets July 3, 2015 C High
Detroit Pistons July 3, 2015 Start Top
Golden State Warriors July 3, 2015 B Top
Houston Rockets July 3, 2015 C Top
Indiana Pacers July 3, 2015 B High
Los Angeles Clippers July 3, 2015 B Top
Los Angeles Lakers October 30, 2008 GA Top Date is date of promotion to GA.
Memphis Grizzlies July 3, 2015 Start High
Miami Heat July 3, 2015 B Top
Milwaukee Bucks July 3, 2015 Start Top
Minnesota Timberwolves July 3, 2015 C High
New Orleans Pelicans July 3, 2015 Start High
New York Knicks July 3, 2015 B Top
Oklahoma City Thunder July 3, 2015 B High
Orlando Magic July 3, 2015 B High
Philadelphia 76ers July 3, 2015 B Top
Phoenix Suns July 3, 2015 B High
Portland Trail Blazers July 11, 2008 GA High Date is date of promotion to GA.
Sacramento Kings July 3, 2015 Start High
San Antonio Spurs July 3, 2015 B Top
Toronto Raptors May 12, 2007 FA High Date is date featured.
Utah Jazz July 3, 2015 B High
Washington Wizards July 3, 2015 B High

Quality scale

[edit]

Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.

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.

  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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 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:
  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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 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:
  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 (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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
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
  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 be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
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. Wing
(as of June 2018)
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. Ball
(as of September 2014)
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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
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 literary movements

Importance scale

[edit]

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 students of hagiography. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

Note that 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. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the prespective of someone from that region.

Top Subject is a must-have for a print encyclopedia
High Subject contributes a depth of knowledge
Mid Subject fills in more minor details
Low Subject is mainly of specialist interest.
NA Subject is a disambiguation or redirect page, residing in article space and thus does not require an importance assessment.
NBA WikiProject article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Examples
Top General articles:
Reserved exclusively for articles that are vital to the understanding of the National Basketball Association. This should include any articles or lists on the general topic of the league, articles on current top franchises with 2+ NBA championships, and articles that cover topics that are central to the history of the league. 		These will be the most likely reader entry points to the subject. If articles covering these subjects did not exist, they would need to be created. National Basketball Association, Los Angeles Lakers, NBA Playoffs, NBA Finals, NBA Draft, NBA regular season records
Biographic articles:
Reserved exclusively for biographic articles covering persons who are vital to the understanding of the National Basketball Association. This will include articles on league founders and notable franchise owners; successful, long-tenured head coaches, particularly noteworthy players, and any other personnel who are central to the league's history. Typically these are people who have contributed significantly to the NBA and are at a minimum members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. 		Michael Jordan, Bill Russell, George Mikan, Phil Jackson, Red Auerbach, Jerry Buss
High General articles:
Articles that fall just short of being vital in the understanding of the subject as a whole. This should include articles on individual league seasons; articles on individual Finals, Playoffs and Playoff games, articles of team season that reaches to the NBA Finals, other franchises, defunct franchises and general articles on topics central to the league. 		Most readers would quickly notice the omission of any of these articles. These articles are probably among the most actively edited articles in the project. 2006–07 NBA season, 2007 NBA Playoffs, 2007 NBA Finals, Toronto Raptors, Chicago Stags, 2003–04 Detroit Pistons season, 2011 NBA lockout
Biographic articles:
This classification should include articles on players who were very good but not the most elite. This would include Hall of Fame members who were not graded above as Top. Others include players who won an NBA Most Valuable Player Award, voted 3+ 1st-team All-NBA or selected to 5+ All-Star roster. Coaches include those who have coached 2+ NBA championships or won over 900+ NBA games. 		Joe Dumars, Robert Parish, Kobe Bryant, Tony Parker, Carmelo Anthony, Ray Allen, Steve Nash, K. C. Jones, Dick Motta
Mid General articles:
The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in a thorough understanding of the National Basketball Association. This group will include articles on the history of individual franchises; articles on seasons of individual teams that fall short of "High" importance criteria; articles on individual NBA drafts, All-Star games and articles on current and former arenas which were used by an NBA team for 20 years or more. 		Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand the subject. List of Chicago Bulls seasons, 2008–09 Charlotte Bobcats season, 2003 NBA Draft, Madison Square Garden, Eligibility for the NBA Draft
Biographic articles:
This should include players who had careers of nine or more seasons, but did not meet the criteria for the categories above, OR any players with shorter tenure, but who made at least one All-Star roster; been named to at least one All-NBA or All-Defensive team; won one of Finals MVP, Defensive Player of the Year, Most Improved Player, Rookie of the Year or Sixth Man of the Year awards; or was a top-5 NBA Draft selection. This also includes head coaches who coached 9+ seasons, coached an NBA championship, or won NBA Coach of the Year who aren't included above. 		Monta Ellis, Rajon Rondo, Tyson Chandler, Kurt Thomas, Reggie Lewis, Ernie DiGregorio, Bernie Bickerstaff, Tom Thibodeau, Paul Westhead
Low General articles:
The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of the topic, but may cover topics directly or indirectly related to it. This category will included articles on individual games and individual plays. 		Few readers outside of the topic area may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of the league. NBA Development League, Rising Stars Challenge, NBA outdoor games
Biographic articles:
This should include players who made only minor contributions in the league or none at all, i.e. players with careers of eight or fewer seasons who never made All-Star or won major awards. This category will also include coaches with eight or fewer seasons and team mascots. 		Jimmer Fredette, Lavoy Allen, Mike Dunlap, Damon Bailey, John Calipari, Dancing Harry
Unknown The importance of this article has not yet been assessed. Editors should assess this article and add their assessment of its importance to the subject to the NBA project template on the article's talk page. List of such 
articles

Requests for assessment

[edit]

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.

Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM, please.

John Stockton Tapered (talk) 07:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Shreve

NBA articles by quality statistics

[edit]
NBA articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 3 2 1 6
FL 1 5 55 28 89
GA 11 23 38 68 4 144
B 26 66 74 89 7 262
C 32 104 257 554 71 1,018
Start 22 209 407 2,340 521 3,499
Stub 64 50 1,676 649 2,439
List 6 30 87 320 2 98 543
Category 1,742 1,742
Disambig 8 8
File 3,018 3,018
Project 58 58
Redirect 1 5 25 188 219
Template 1,043 1,043
Other 16 16
Assessed 101 504 974 5,100 6,075 1,350 14,104
Unassessed 123 123
Total 101 504 974 5,100 6,075 1,473 14,227
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 37,275 Ω = 5.06


NBA articles by quality log

[edit]

January 9, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

January 8, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

January 7, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

January 6, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]
  • Dutch Gaitley (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

[edit]

January 5, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

January 4, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

January 3, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Assessment&oldid=1137685005"