Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
<Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association
Shortcut
WikiProject National Basketball Association
This project identifies, organizes and improves articles relating to the National Basketball Association on Wikipedia.
12722 articles (6Featured articles, 82Featured lists, 138Good articles) as of November 28  

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
ArticleDateQualityImportanceComments
Atlanta HawksJuly 3,2015CHigh
Boston CelticsJuly 3,2015CTop
Brooklyn NetsJuly 3,2015CHigh
Charlotte HornetsJuly 3,2015BHigh
Chicago BullsJuly 3,2015BTop
Cleveland CavaliersJuly 3,2015CHigh
Dallas MavericksJuly 3,2015CHigh
Denver NuggetsJuly 3,2015CHigh
Detroit PistonsJuly 3,2015StartTop
Golden State WarriorsJuly 3,2015BTop
Houston RocketsJuly 3,2015CTop
Indiana PacersJuly 3,2015BHigh
Los Angeles ClippersJuly 3,2015BHigh
Los Angeles LakersOctober 30,2008GATopDate is date of promotion toGA.
Memphis GrizzliesJuly 3,2015StartHigh
Miami HeatJuly 3,2015BTop
Milwaukee BucksJuly 3,2015StartTop
Minnesota TimberwolvesJuly 3,2015CHigh
New Orleans PelicansJuly 3,2015StartHigh
New York KnicksJuly 3,2015BTop
Oklahoma City ThunderJuly 3,2015BHigh
Orlando MagicJuly 3,2015BHigh
Philadelphia 76ersJuly 3,2015BTop
Phoenix SunsJuly 3,2015BHigh
Portland Trail BlazersJuly 11,2008GAHighDate is date of promotion toGA.
Sacramento KingsJuly 3,2015StartHigh
San Antonio SpursJuly 3,2015BTop
Toronto RaptorsMay 12,2007FAHighDate is date featured.
Utah JazzJuly 3,2015BHigh
Washington WizardsJuly 3,2015BHigh

Quality scale

[edit]

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

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
ClassCriteriaReader's experienceEditing suggestionsExample
 FAThe article has attainedfeatured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets thefeatured article criteria:

Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting thepolicies 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 areverifiable against high-qualityreliable sources and are supported by inline citationswhere appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents viewsfairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoingedit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant withWikipedia's copyright policy and free ofplagiarism ortoo-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows thestyle guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a conciselead 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 hierarchicalsection headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—seeciting sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It hasimages and other media, where appropriate, with succinctcaptions andacceptable copyright status. Images follow theimage use policy.Non-free images or media must satisfy thecriteria for inclusion of non-free content andbe labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and usessummary 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)
 FLThe article has attainedfeatured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets thefeatured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaginglead 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 andtable sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with theManual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoingedit 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)
 AThe 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 theA-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described inWikipedia: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 afeatured 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)
 GAThe article meetsall of thegood article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers fromWP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
Agood article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation.
  2. Verifiable withno original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould 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 containsno original research; and
    4. it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses themain aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary 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 ongoingedit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio:
    1. media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content; and
    2. media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable 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 existingfeatured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.Everybody Wants to Rule the World
(as of October 2025)
BThe article meetsall of theB-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reachgood article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article issuitably referenced, withinline citations. It hasreliable sources, and any important or controversial material which islikely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of<ref> tags andcitation 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 anA-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 alead 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 beof the standard of featured articles. TheManual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, aninfobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in anappropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background andtechnical 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 theManual of Style and relatedstyle guidelines.Psychology
(as of January 2024)
CThe 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 substantialcleanup.
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 solvecleanup problems.Wing
(as of June 2018)
StartAn 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 toreliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.Gravel
(as of January 2006)
StubA 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)
ListMeets the criteria of astand-alone list orset 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 arenot meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of theaverage 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 greaterpopular 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; afeatured 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.

TopSubject is amust-have for a print encyclopedia
HighSubject contributes adepth of knowledge
MidSubject fills in moreminor details
LowSubject is mainly ofspecialist interest.
NASubject is a disambiguation or redirect page, residing in article space and thusdoes not require an importance assessment.
NBA WikiProject article importance grading scheme
LabelCriteriaReader's experienceEditor's experienceExamples
TopGeneral articles:
Reserved exclusively for articles that arevital 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 wouldneed 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 arevital 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 arecentral to the league's history. Typically these are people who have contributed significantly to the NBA and are at a minimum members of theNaismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame.
Michael Jordan,Bill Russell,George Mikan,Phil Jackson,Red Auerbach,Jerry Buss
HighGeneral 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 asTop. Others include players who won anNBA Most Valuable Player Award, voted 3+ 1st-teamAll-NBA or selected to 5+All-Star roster. Coaches include those who havecoached 2+ NBA championships orwon over 900+ NBA games.
Joe Dumars,Robert Parish,Kobe Bryant,Tony Parker,Carmelo Anthony,Ray Allen,Steve Nash,K. C. Jones,Dick Motta
MidGeneral 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 individualNBA drafts,All-Star games and articles oncurrent 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 ofnine or more seasons, but did not meet the criteria for the categories above,OR any players with shorter tenure, but who made at least oneAll-Star roster; been named to at least oneAll-NBA orAll-Defensive team; won one ofFinals MVP,Defensive Player of the Year,Most Improved Player,Rookie of the Year orSixth Man of the Year awards; or was a top-5NBA Draft selection. This also includes head coaches who coached 9+ seasons, coached an NBA championship, or wonNBA 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
LowGeneral 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 ofeight or fewer seasons who never made All-Star or won major awards. This category will also include coaches witheight or fewer seasons and team mascots.
Jimmer Fredette,Lavoy Allen,Mike Dunlap,Damon Bailey,John Calipari,Dancing Harry
UnknownThe 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 StocktonTapered (talk)07:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Shreve

NBA articles by quality statistics

[edit]
NBA articles by quality and importance
QualityImportance
TopHighMidLowNA???Total
FA3115
FL15552990
GA102133763143
B2573851059297
C36108293708761,221
Start202033642,8374533,877
Stub64472,0585222,691
List630893292108564
Category1,8341,834
Disambig99
File4,0344,034
Project5959
Redirect1526195227
Template1,4281,428
NA22
Other268
Assessed1015069726,1707,5691,17116,489
Unassessed107107
Total1015069726,1707,5691,27816,596
WikiWork factors (?)ω =41,560Ω = 5.05


NBA articles by quality log

[edit]

November 27, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 26, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

November 25, 2025

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 24, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

November 23, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 22, 2025

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Basketball_Association/Assessment&oldid=1294322876"
Category:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp