Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment
Welcome to the assessment department of the College Football WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's college football 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 recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.
College football articles by quality and importance | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | |||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | Bottom | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
1 | 3 | 14 | 23 | 1 | 42 | ||
![]() |
2 | 42 | 2 | 46 | ||||
![]() |
15 | 75 | 81 | 287 | 19 | 1 | 478 | |
B | 39 | 238 | 284 | 425 | 29 | 1,015 | ||
C | 58 | 631 | 946 | 2,028 | 143 | 16 | 3,822 | |
Start | 168 | 1,518 | 3,389 | 10,900 | 725 | 3,977 | 20,677 | |
Stub | 175 | 2,073 | 18,837 | 18,981 | 1,192 | 7,029 | 48,287 | |
List | 220 | 1,452 | 527 | 19 | 1 | 2 | 2,221 | |
Category | 11,604 | 11,604 | ||||||
Disambig | 137 | 137 | ||||||
File | 9,194 | 9,194 | ||||||
Portal | 81 | 81 | ||||||
Project | 88 | 88 | ||||||
Redirect | 2 | 3 | 12 | 47,445 | 47,462 | |||
Template | 11,248 | 11,248 | ||||||
Draft | 1 | 5 | 110 | 116 | ||||
NA | 3 | 7 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 30 | ||
Assessed | 456 | 4,765 | 25,056 | 33,205 | 2,130 | 79,911 | 11,025 | 156,548 |
Unassessed | 2 | 14 | 16 | |||||
Total | 456 | 4,767 | 25,056 | 33,205 | 2,130 | 79,911 | 11,039 | 156,564 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 412,396 | Ω = 5.55 |
The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:College football articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Frequently asked questions
[edit]- How do I add an article to the College football WikiProject?
- Just add {{WikiProject College football}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
- 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 College Football WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
- 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?
- This does not exist for this project yet. Perhaps you could join the project and create a peer review system?
- What if I don't agree with a quality 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.
- What if I don't agree with an importance rating?
- If you believe an item is mis-classed or its class has since changed, please list it in the Requesting an assessment with your reasons. Please see the importance scale below and make sure your claims follow the criteria listed.
- Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are, 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 monthly statistics may be more accessible.
- Can I review my own article?
- You may not rate your own articles. New articles should be added to the peer review section of assessment. Large changes to articles that may change the quality should be added to the Requesting an assessment section. Articles that may need a change in Importance status should be listed in the Importance review section.
- Exception: editors who create articles and/or files can assess the following classifications: Start, Stub, List, Category, Disambig, File, Portal, Project, Redirect, or Template. Self-classification of "start" articles should be used sparingly as most new articles tend to be "stubs" -- the remaining classifications are procedural in nature and can be applied as apporpriate. However, if an article creator thinks the article should be C, B, A, GA, FA, or FL, they should leave it unassessed and request an assessment.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the project coordinators directly.
Instructions
[edit]![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/11/Trend_in_WPCFB.png/220px-Trend_in_WPCFB.png)
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject College football}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):
- {{WikiProject College football| class= }} (This is currently the only option)
While assessing articles, please rate the class with a capital letter. This will insure uniformity on the template.
The following values may be used for the class parameter:
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class college football articles)
- FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class college football articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class college football articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class college football articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class college football articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class college football articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class college football articles)
- List (lists that haven't yet reached Featured List (FL) status; adds articles to Category:List-Class college football articles)
- File (images, files, etc.; adds articles to Category:File-Class college football articles)
- Template (templates; adds articles to Category:Template-Class college football articles)
- Category (categories; adds articles to Category:Category-Class college football articles)
- Project (related to project administration; adds articles to Category:Project-Class college football articles)
- Portal (portal-related pages; adds articles to Category:Portal-Class college football articles)
- Disambig (disambugation pages; adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class college football articles)
- Redirect (redirection pages; adds articles to Category:Redirect-Class college football articles)
- NA (rarely used; only used in sandbox and other non-article or non-project areas; adds pages to Category:NA-Class college football articles)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed college football articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Quality scale
[edit]Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
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.
|
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) |
![]() |
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:
|
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) |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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 NCAA Division II football programs (as of March 2009) |
Category | Any category falls under this class. | Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. | Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. | Category:College football bowls |
Disambig | Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. | Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. | 1997 Fiesta Bowl |
Portal | Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. | Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. | Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. | Portal:College football |
Template | Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. | Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. | Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. | Template:NCAA football seasons |
NA | Any non-article page that fits no other classification. | The page contains no article content. | Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified. |
Additional classes in use
[edit]Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
Project {{Project-Class}} |
Not an article about a specific topic, but related to the administration of the project. | Informs the reader about some aspect of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. | Project members keep the article up-to-date as needed. | Wikipedia:WikiProject College football |
File {{File-Class}} |
An image or other file related about the project. | Ensure fair-use rationale, and such are applicable. | File:Cornell's 1904 Varsity Football Team.jpg | |
Redirect {{Redirect-Class}} |
Any redirection page falls into this category. | The reader is redirected to the correct page, either from a common misspelling, common mistake (e.g. Category:2006 NCAA Division I-A football season vs Category:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season), or from a specific title to an aggregate article (e.g. 1882 Minnesota Golden Gophers football team redirects to Early history of Minnesota Golden Gophers football). | Keep redirects up-to-date. If redirect is changed to an article of its own, update assessment class accordingly. | Category:2005 NCAA Division I FBS football season |
Importance scale
[edit]The following importance scale may look complicated, but keep in mind that this WikiProject has nearly 30,000 articles in it. A more explicit scale allows easier implementation and fewer arguments. With this matrix, it should be relatively simple to assess the importance of even a stub article, it being necessary only to determine the applicable category, the level of competition, and whether any special considerations apply.
FBS AQ | FBS non-AQ ("mid major") | FCS | Other | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Association season | Top (2010 NCAA Division I FBS football season) | High (2004 NCAA Division I-AA football season) | ||
Conference | High (Mid-American Conference) | Mid | ||
Conference season* | High (2010 Big Ten Conference football season) | Mid | Low | |
Team | High (Kentucky Wildcats football) | Mid | Mid | |
Team season* | Mid (2010 Akron Zips football team)** | Low** | Bottom** | |
Rivalry | Mid (Paul Bunyan Trophy) | Mid (Michigan MAC Trophy) | Low (Battle for the Old Mountain Jug) | Low |
Single game* | Low | Low | Bottom | |
Post-season game (general) | High (Rose Bowl Game) | Mid (Humanitarian Bowl) | Mid (Gridiron Classic) | Low (Aztec Bowl) |
Post-season game (specific)* | Mid for BCS bowls/top-10 teams (2010 Sugar Bowl), Low for all others (2005 Motor City Bowl) | Bottom | ||
Ranking/rating systems (inc. championships) | High (Bowl Championship Series, Dickinson System) | Mid | Low (NCAA Division II National Football Championship) | |
Pageantry and lore | Low (Aggie Bonfire, The Victors, Sparty, Quarterback U, Game of the Century (college football), Rudy (film)) | |||
Head coach* | Low (Rich Rodriguez)*** | Bottom | ||
Assistant coach*** | Bottom | |||
Player* | Low (Dan LeFevour)** | Bottom | ||
Facility | Mid**** | Low**** | ||
General football concepts | Top-Mid (depending on degree of use through the history of the sport) | |||
Individual awards and honors | Low***** | Bottom***** | ||
Media coverage/figures | Mid-Bottom, assessed on an ad hoc basis (College Football on ABC, Brent Musburger, Grantland Rice) | |||
List | At the normal level of the items in the list. |
With consensus, an article may be assessed as one level lower than given for its type. In exceptional cases, with consensus, an article may be assessed as one level higher than given for its type.
*Based on level at the time, e.g. 2010 UMass Minutemen football team was in FCS but 2013 UMass Minutemen football team will be in FBS. This principle also applies to now-defunct programs, conferences, and post-season games. Pre-NCAA schools should be assessed using ????.From 19?? to 19?? the NCAA did not use divisions and should be assessed as ???. From 19?? to 1972 the NCAA University Division should be assessed using FBS levels and the College Division should be assessed using Division II (???) levels. From 1973 to 1977 there were no subdivisions, and all Division I schools should be assessed using FBS levels. Prior to 2006 FBS was called Division I-A and FCS was called Division I-AA.
**National champion team seasons, Heisman Trophy winners, consensus first-team All-Americans, should start two levels higher than given; conference champion seasons, All-Americans, and other major national award winners should start one level higher than given.
***Based on the highest level coached; coaches who have won a national championship should start two levels higher than given; coaches who have finished a season in the top 10 of a major poll or won a conference championship should start one level higher than given.
****Facilities that have always been primarily practice facilities should start one level lower than given. Facilities that have served as the home site for multiple national champion team seasons and/or regularly hosted a top-tier (BCS/top-10) post-season game should start two levels higher than given; facilities that have served as the home site for one national champion team season and/or regularly hosted a post-season game should start one level higher than given.
*****National player of the year or MVP awards (e.g. Harlon Hill Trophy) should start two levels higher than given; other major national awards (including positional awards, coaching awards, All-America teams, and national halls of fame) should start one level higher than given.
Sub-topics
[edit]Often, as an article grows, sections of it may be spun off as separate articles (see Wikipedia:Summary style). When this is the case, the sub-topic should generally be one importance level lower than the parent article, or infrequently the same importance level. Only in exceptional cases will the sub-article be of higher importance than the parent article. Among others, this rule applies to a team history (History of Ohio State Buckeyes football) and lists of bowl games by team (List of Alabama Crimson Tide bowl games) relative to the team article; football by conference (Big 12 Conference football) and lists of champions by conference (List of Big Ten Conference football champions) relative to the conference article; bowl games by season (2010–11 NCAA football bowl games) and yearly rankings by season (2010 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings) relative to the association season article.
Special assessment levels
[edit]- Unknown-importance articles are those that have not yet been assessed, or where the importance is in dispute.
- NA-importance pages are pages outside articlespace, including project pages and templates.
- No-importance pages are non-articles in articlespace, such as redirects and disambiguation pages.
Requesting an 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 by adding
|reassess=yes
to the talk page. New articles do not need to be listed here unless they have gone unrated for more than 2 weeks. Please be sure to add new articles to the assessment table.
Statistics
[edit]Monthly changes
[edit]July 2006 | August 2006 | September 2006 | October 2006 | November 2006 | December 2006 | January 2007 | February 2007 | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
0 | 0.00 % | 1 | 0.09 % | 1 | 0.08 % | 1 | 0.08 % | 1 | 0.07 % | 1 | 0.06 % | 1 | 0.05 % | 1 | 0.05 % |
![]() |
0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 1 | 0.05 % | 1 | 0.05 % |
![]() |
2 | 0.20 % | 2 | 0.18 % | 4 | 0.34 % | 3 | 0.24 % | 3 | 0.22 % | 5 | 0.30 % | 6 | 0.33 % | 9 | 0.43 % |
B | 66 | 6.90 % | 124 | 11.24 % | 131 | 11.22 % | 137 | 11.29 % | 144 | 10.73 % | 162 | 9.82 % | 188 | 10.18 % | 212 | 10.17 % |
Start | 123 | 12.87 % | 280 | 25.39 % | 321 | 27.48 % | 327 | 26.93 % | 362 | 26.97 % | 481 | 29.15 % | 592 | 32.07 % | 673 | 32.29 % |
Stub | 121 | 12.66 % | 256 | 23.21 % | 319 | 27.31 % | 344 | 28.34 % | 431 | 32.12 % | 610 | 36.97 % | 705 | 38.19 % | 847 | 40.64 % |
Unassessed | 644 | 67.36 % | 440 | 39.89 % | 392 | 33.56 % | 402 | 33.11 % | 401 | 29.88 % | 391 | 23.70 % | 353 | 19.12 % | 341 | 16.36 % |
Total | 956 | 1,103 | 1,168 | 1,214 | 1,342 | 1,650 | 1,846 | 2,084 | ||||||||
March 2007 | April 2007 | May 2007 | June 2007 | July 2007 | August 2007 | September 2007 | October 2007 | |||||||||
![]() |
2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.07 % | 2 | 0.06 % | 5 | 0.15 % | 5 | 0.15 % |
![]() |
0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 2 | 0.06 % | 1 | 0.03 % | 2 | 0.06 % |
![]() |
13 | 0.50 % | 15 | 0.54 % | 17 | 0.58 % | 18 | 0.60 % | 19 | 0.62 % | 18 | 0.55 % | 16 | 0.48 % | 18 | 0.53 % |
B | 245 | 9.43 % | 249 | 9.01 % | 254 | 8.73 % | 259 | 8.60 % | 264 | 8.68 % | 268 | 8.20 % | 269 | 8.08 % | 273 | 8.10 % |
Start | 931 | 35.82 % | 957 | 34.64 % | 990 | 34.03 % | 1,032 | 34.26 % | 1,036 | 34.07 % | 1,058 | 32.37 % | 1,081 | 32.49 % | 1,095 | 32.49 % |
Stub | 1,405 | 54.06 % | 1,508 | 54.58 % | 1,579 | 54.28 % | 1,685 | 55.94 % | 1,720 | 56.56 % | 1,728 | 52.88 % | 1,753 | 52.69 % | 1,759 | 52.20 % |
Unassessed | 3 | 0.12 % | 32 | 1.16 % | 67 | 2.30 % | 16 | 0.53 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 192 | 5.88 % | 202 | 6.07 % | 218 | 6.47 % |
Total | 2,599 | 2,763 | 2,909 | 3,012 | 3,041 | 3,268 | 3,327 | 3,370 | ||||||||
November 2007 | December 2007 | January 2008 | February 2008 | March 2008 | April 2008 | May 2008 | June 2008 | |||||||||
![]() |
5 | 0.15 % | 9 | 0.20 % | 10 | 0.07 % | 14 | 0.09 % | 9 | 0.06 % | 8 | 0.05 % | 9 | 0.06 % | 9 | 0.06 % |
![]() |
0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 9 | 0.06 % | 9 | 0.06 % | 13 | 0.08 % | 13 | 0.08 % |
![]() |
2 | 0.06 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % |
![]() |
18 | 0.52 % | 23 | 0.52 % | 43 | 0.29 % | 61 | 0.41 % | 71 | 0.47 % | 73 | 0.48 % | 74 | 0.48 % | 76 | 0.49 % |
B | 298 | 8.67 % | 310 | 7.02 % | 362 | 2.46 % | 427 | 2.87 % | 438 | 2.91 % | 437 | 2.89 % | 439 | 2.87 % | 442 | 2.86 % |
Start | 1,260 | 36.66 % | 1,308 | 29.63 % | 2,184 | 14.82 % | 2,495 | 16.78 % | 2,602 | 17.26 % | 2,628 | 17.39 % | 2,667 | 17.43 % | 2,687 | 17.40 % |
Stub | 1,844 | 53.65 % | 2,444 | 55.36 % | 6,196 | 42.04 % | 10,339 | 69.55 % | 10,509 | 69.71 % | 10,519 | 69.60 % | 10,663 | 69.68 % | 10,774 | 69.78 % |
Unassessed | 10 | 0.29 % | 321 | 7.27 % | 5,944 | 40.33 % | 1,530 | 10.29 % | 1,438 | 9.54 % | 1,439 | 9.52 % | 1,438 | 9.40 % | 1,440 | 9.33 % |
Total | 3,437 | 4,415 | 14,739 | 14,866 | 15,076 | 15,113 | 15,303 | 15,441 | ||||||||
July 2008 | August 2008 | September 2008 | October 2008 | November 2008 | December 2008 | January 2009 | February 2009 | |||||||||
![]() |
10 | 0.06 % | 10 | 0.06 % | 11 | 0.07 % | 12 | 0.08 % | 13 | 0.08 % | 14 | 0.09 % | 16 | 0.10 % | 16 | 0.10 % |
![]() |
15 | 0.10 % | 15 | 0.10 % | 15 | 0.10 % | 17 | 0.11 % | 17 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.11 % |
![]() |
0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 1 | 0.01 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 0 | 0.00 % | 1 | 0.01 % | 0 | 0.00 % |
![]() |
81 | 0.52 % | 87 | 0.56 % | 85 | 0.55 % | 89 | 0.57 % | 89 | 0.56 % | 89 | 0.55 % | 91 | 0.56 % | 95 | 0.58 % |
B | 443 | 2.86 % | 446 | 2.87 % | 452 | 2.90 % | 461 | 2.94 % | 462 | 2.91 % | 466 | 2.90 % | 472 | 2.89 % | 472 | 2.88 % |
C | 0 | 0.00 % | 26 | 0.17 % | 38 | 0.24 % | 61 | 0.39 % | 68 | 0.43 % | 70 | 0.43 % | 76 | 0.47 % | 78 | 0.48 % |
Start | 2,726 | 17.61 % | 2,747 | 17.67 % | 2,778 | 17.83 % | 2,874 | 18.33 % | 2,906 | 18.32 % | 2,986 | 18.55 % | 3,043 | 18.65 % | 3,055 | 18.61 % |
Stub | 10,796 | 69.73 % | 10,822 | 69.60 % | 10,779 | 69.18 % | 10,822 | 69.04 % | 10,941 | 68.98 % | 11,000 | 68.35 % | 11,035 | 67.61 % | 11,040 | 67.26 % |
Unassessed | 1,411 | 9.11 % | 1,396 | 8.98 % | 1,423 | 9.13 % | 1,339 | 8.54 % | 1,366 | 8.61 % | 1,450 | 9.01 % | 1,568 | 9.61 % | 1,640 | 9.99 % |
Total | 15,482 | 15,549 | 15,582 | 15,675 | 15,862 | 16,093 | 16,320 | 16,414 | ||||||||
March 2009 | April 2009 | May 2009 | June 2009 | July 2009 | August 2009 | September 2009 | October 2009 | |||||||||
![]() |
18 | 0.11 % | 20 | 0.12 % | 20 | 0.12 % | 20 | 0.11 % | 21 | 0.12 % | 21 | 0.12 % | 21 | 0.12 % | 22 | 0.12 % |
![]() |
18 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.11 % | 18 | 0.10 % | 17 | 0.10 % | 16 | 0.09 % | 16 | 0.09 % | 16 | 0.09 % | 18 | 0.10 % |
![]() |
1 | 0.01 % | 2 | 0.01 % | 2 | 0.01 % | 2 | 0.01 % | 2 | 0.01 % | 3 | 0.02 % | 3 | 0.02 % | 2 | 0.01 % |
![]() |
98 | 0.59 % | 101 | 0.60 % | 102 | 0.59 % | 105 | 0.60 % | 107 | 0.61 % | 107 | 0.60 % | 116 | 0.65 % | 118 | 0.65 % |
B | 469 | 2.83 % | 492 | 2.90 % | 529 | 3.08 % | 534 | 3.06 % | 547 | 3.11 % | 560 | 3.17 % | 558 | 3.13 % | 559 | 3.10 % |
C | 118 | 0.71 % | 220 | 1.30 % | 308 | 1.79 % | 335 | 1.92 % | 366 | 2.08 % | 398 | 2.25 % | 407 | 2.28 % | 413 | 2.29 % |
Start | 3,102 | 18.69 % | 3,455 | 20.38 % | 4,130 | 24.04 % | 4,212 | 24.17 % | 4,253 | 24.19 % | 4,342 | 24.54 % | 4,400 | 24.70 % | 4,444 | 24.63 % |
Stub | 11,055 | 66.61 % | 11,210 | 66.14 % | 11,883 | 69.16 % | 11,985 | 68.76 % | 11,992 | 68.21 % | 11,965 | 67.63 % | 11,980 | 67.24 % | 12,083 | 66.96 % |
List | 119 | 0.72 % | 127 | 0.75 % | 189 | 1.10 % | 195 | 1.12 % | 199 | 1.13 % | 201 | 1.14 % | 205 | 1.15 % | 205 | 1.18 % |
Unassessed | 1,598 | 9.63 % | 1,304 | 7.69 % | 1 | 0.01 % | 25 | 0.14 % | 79 | 0.45 % | 80 | 0.45 % | 111 | 0.62 % | 172 | 0.95 % |
Total | 16,596 | 16,949 | 17,182 | 17,405 | 17,582 | 17,693 | 17,817 | 18,044 | ||||||||
November 2009 | December 2009 | January 2010 | February 2010 | March 2010 | April 2010 | May 2010 | June 2010 | |||||||||
![]() |
21 | 0.12 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
![]() |
19 | 0.10 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
![]() |
2 | 0.01 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
![]() |
122 | 0.67 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
B | 560 | 3.08 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
C | 433 | 2.38 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
Start | 4,488 | 24.69 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
Stub | 12,138 | 66.78 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
List | 223 | 1.23 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
Unassessed | 171 | 0.94 % | % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |||||||
Total | 18,177 |
Worklist and log
[edit]Click here for the complete log.
![]() | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.