Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject College football
WikiProject College football
Overview
Project page talk
College football Portal talk
Participants talk
Active editors
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment (log) talk
Peer review talk
Article alerts talk
Newsletter talk
Style and content guides
Style guide talk
Templates talk
Image use talk
Notability talk
Reliable sources talk
Vacated victories talk
Master team table talk
Team articles talk
Yearly team pages format talk
Coaching trees talk
Major vs small college compendium talk
External resources
Archived yearbooks talk
Official guides talk
Media guide errors talk
Lists of pages needing help
To do list talk
Cleanup listing talk
Deletion reviews talk
Unreferenced BLPs talk
Campaigns
Season articles campaign talk
The Perfect Season talk
CFHOF article improvement talk
Coach articles campaign talk
Current season articles
2024 NCAA D-I FBS season talk
2024–25 bowl games talk
2024 FBS rankings talk
2024 NCAA D-I FCS season talk
2024 FCS rankings talk
2024 NCAA D-II season talk
2024 D-II rankings talk
2024 NCAA D-III season talk
2024 D-III rankings talk
2024 NAIA season talk
2024 NAIA rankings talk
Current article checklists talk
Tools
Project banner talk
{{subst:CFBwelcome-project}} talk
Photos on Commons
Userboxes
Project userbox talk
NCAA teams talk
view · edit · changes
Shortcut

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.

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
 

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:

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
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 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.

Category College football articles needing reassessment not found

Statistics

edit

Monthly changes

edit
All figures given for the  end  of each month
July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007
  FA 0 0.00 % 1 0.09 % 1 0.08 % 1 0.08 % 1 0.07 % 1 0.06 % 1 0.05 % 1 0.05 %
  A 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 0.05 % 1 0.05 %
  GA 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
  FA 2 0.07 % 2 0.07 % 2 0.07 % 2 0.07 % 2 0.07 % 2 0.06 % 5 0.15 % 5 0.15 %
  A 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 2 0.06 % 1 0.03 % 2 0.06 %
  GA 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
  FA 5 0.15 % 9 0.20 % 10 0.07 % 14 0.09 % 9 0.06 % 8 0.05 % 9 0.06 % 9 0.06 %
  FL 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 9 0.06 % 9 0.06 % 13 0.08 % 13 0.08 %
  A 2 0.06 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 %
  GA 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
  FA 10 0.06 % 10 0.06 % 11 0.07 % 12 0.08 % 13 0.08 % 14 0.09 % 16 0.10 % 16 0.10 %
  FL 15 0.10 % 15 0.10 % 15 0.10 % 17 0.11 % 17 0.11 % 18 0.11 % 18 0.11 % 18 0.11 %
  A 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 0.01 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 1 0.01 % 0 0.00 %
  GA 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
  FA 18 0.11 % 20 0.12 % 20 0.12 % 20 0.11 % 21 0.12 % 21 0.12 % 21 0.12 % 22 0.12 %
  FL 18 0.11 % 18 0.11 % 18 0.10 % 17 0.10 % 16 0.09 % 16 0.09 % 16 0.09 % 18 0.10 %
  A 1 0.01 % 2 0.01 % 2 0.01 % 2 0.01 % 2 0.01 % 3 0.02 % 3 0.02 % 2 0.01 %
  GA 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
  FA 21 0.12 %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %
  FL 19 0.10 %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %
  A 2 0.01 %  %  %  %  %  %  %  %
  GA 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 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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Assessment&oldid=1210470591"