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
FA	1	3	13	23	1			41
FL		2	42	1				45
GA	14	76	80	280	19			469
B	39	234	276	405	27			981
C	59	622	924	1,977	139			3,721
Start	161	1,490	3,212	10,438	702		3,907	19,910
Stub	182	2,096	18,870	18,550	1,174		7,540	48,412
List		222	1,445	560	19	1	2	2,249
Category						11,387		11,387
Disambig						122		122
File						9,002		9,002
Portal						81		81
Project						87		87
Redirect						47,108		47,108
Template						10,684		10,684
Draft			1	3		126		130
Assessed	456	4,745	24,863	32,237	2,081	78,598	11,449	154,429
Unassessed				1			3	4
Total	456	4,745	24,863	32,238	2,081	78,598	11,452	154,433
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 408,787			Ω = 5.56

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

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

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

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.	Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible.[under discussion]	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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.	Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items.	No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available.	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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication.	Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	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 The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher.	A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines.	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

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

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

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

• 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

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

Monthly changes

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

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.