Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Assessment

WikiProject National Basketball Association This project identifies, organizes and improves articles relating to the National Basketball Association on Wikipedia.
Information: Main page • Discussion • Members • Templates • Main category • Recognized content Departments: Article alerts • Assessment • Assessment log • Style advice • References Tools: Project banner • Welcome banner • Userbox • Quality • Popular pages • Active editors
12722 articles (6 Featured articles, 82 Featured lists, 138 Good articles) as of December 16   view | edit

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

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

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

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.	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 and includes at minimum eight items; 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; 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: 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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 literary movements

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of hagiography. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the prespective of someone from that region.

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

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

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

Jeff Shreve

NBA articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	3	2	1				6
FL	1	5	55	28			89
GA	11	23	38	68		4	144
B	26	66	74	88		7	261
C	32	104	255	552		71	1,014
Start	22	208	407	2,325		519	3,481
Stub		65	50	1,685		652	2,452
List	6	31	87	319	2	98	543
Category					1,813		1,813
Disambig					8		8
File					3,951		3,951
Project					59		59
Redirect			5	24	185		214
Template					1,416		1,416
NA				1	2		3
Other					12		12
Assessed	101	504	972	5,090	7,448	1,351	15,466
Unassessed						123	123
Total	101	504	972	5,090	7,448	1,474	15,589
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 37,243			Ω = 5.06

• Billy Cunningham (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Charles Jenkins (basketball) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Christopher DeMarco (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Dan Issel (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Danny Manning (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• James Worthy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Shane Battier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• Andy Rautins (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Johnny Dawkins (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Mid-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Kaitlyn Davis (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

• 1950–51 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1951–52 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1952–53 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1953–54 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1954–55 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• 1956–57 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1957–58 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1958–59 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1959–60 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1960–61 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1961–62 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• 1962–63 Syracuse Nationals season (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Artis Gilmore (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Matt Barnes (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:National Basketball Association venues (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)

• Draft:Jaelen Curry (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Los Angeles Clippers Training Center renamed to Honey Training Center.

• 2012-2013 Chicago Bulls (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
• Austin Carr (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Calbert Cheaney (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• David Thompson (basketball) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Larry Johnson (basketball, born 1969) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Mark Aguirre (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Pablo Prigioni (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Wayman Tisdale (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Xavier McDaniel (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• Honey Training Center (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Vincent Edwards (basketball) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Ivica Zubac (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• NBA League Pass (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• NBA Player of the Month and Week (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Cheyenne Parker (basketball) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• John Bagley (basketball) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Luke Babbitt (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Mateen Cleaves (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• Irv Bemoras (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Isaiah Crawford (basketball) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• NBA Africa Game (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as List-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Quincy Olivari (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:NBA championship–winning players from Canada (talk) removed.

• Ignas Brazdeikis (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Mario Hezonja (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Mid-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Šarūnas Jasikevičius (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Aleksandar Vezenkov (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Deividas Sirvydis (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Marcus Brown (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Vassilis Spanoulis (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• List of NBA rookie single-season rebounding leaders (talk) removed.
• Sportbox (talk) removed.