Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics/Assessment

message: If you would like to suggest that the assessment committee change its ways of assessing articles, or have an idea about how to assess certain types of articles, place your suggestion here.
==Precedents==
Trying to find precedents for importance levels, I'd suggest:
*Venues
:*Main Olympic Stadiums - mid
:*Other sports venues - low
*People
:*People intimately associated with Olympics e.g. Steve Redgrave, Seb Coe - high
:*Gold medal winners - mid
:*other competitors - low
Precedents already set:
*High
:*specific Games e.g. 1896 Summer Olympics
:*A country's overall performance at the Games Austria at the Summer Olympics
:*A sport's overall activity at the Games Cycling at the Summer Olympics
*Mid
:*A country's performance at a specific Games Andorra at the 1980 Winter Olympics
:*A sport's activity at a specific Games Bobsleigh at the 1948 Winter Olympics
*Low
:*Specific sport events at a specific Games Athletics at the 1896 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulbrock (talk • contribs) 12:25, April 30, 2007  (UTC)
::This seems to be what I would think too. I like the thing about solving the venues problem, with the main Olympic stadia (usually only 1 or 2 per games) as mid and everything else as low. As far as people, I'm really not sure how we should do this. What I would say is any non-medal winner should be low, and medal winners, depending on their status and recognition should rank anywhere from high to mid, possibly low. I'm not really sure. Just a suggestion. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally i'd say "most gold medal winners" probably still would be low importance. My thinking would be that the higher the number of readers an article is likely to get the greater importance we should give it but that will introduce a huge bias towards English speaking/Anglophile nations - Basement12 (T.C) 04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think importance should be equated with popularity in any significant way.  Of course there is some correlation, but its probably not helpful to write the association into the "rules."  As far as gold medal winners goes, it does seem to be the case they the majority of gold medal winners are currently rated "mid" ... it should probably be limited to just individual event medalists for the "automatic" mid classification though.  I don't think every member of Germany's 2008 Men's Field Hockey team should be mid importance, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Not quite sure what this comment is supposed to mean... Do you have a suggested level of importance for these topics? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: Trying to find precedents for importance levels, I'd suggest:
*Venues
:*Main Olympic Stadiums - mid
:*Other sports venues - low
*People
:*People intimately associated with Olympics e.g. Steve Redgrave, Seb Coe - high
:*Gold medal winners - mid
:*other competitors - low
Precedents already set:
*High
:*specific Games e.g. 1896 Summer Olympics
:*A country's overall performance at the Games Austria at the Summer Olympics
:*A sport's overall activity at the Games Cycling at the Summer Olympics
*Mid
:*A country's performance at a specific Games Andorra at the 1980 Winter Olympics
:*A sport's activity at a specific Games Bobsleigh at the 1948 Winter Olympics
*Low
:*Specific sport events at a specific Games Athletics at the 1896 Summer Olympics - Men's 100 metres
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulbrock (talk • contribs) 12:25, April 30, 2007  (UTC)
::This seems to be what I would think too. I like the thing about solving the venues problem, with the main Olympic stadia (usually only 1 or 2 per games) as mid and everything else as low. As far as people, I'm really not sure how we should do this. What I would say is any non-medal winner should be low, and medal winners, depending on their status and recognition should rank anywhere from high to mid, possibly low. I'm not really sure. Just a suggestion. └Jared┘┌talk┐  20:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Precedents

message: I would like to suggest the following importance scale (similar to 2007 discussion that was never implemented):
;Top
*Articles on governing bodies (i.e. IOC) and Olympics as a whole
*Main article for each Olympics
;High
*Athletes that have won gold medals at multiple Olympics or otherwise are occupy a very significant place in Olympic history
*Main "(country) at the Olympics" articles; main "(sport) at the Olympics" articles
*Opening ceremony articles
*Major (non-sporting) news events associated with the Olympics
;Mid
*Most gold medal winners; athletes who've won medals at multiple Olympics
*Main Olympic stadium for each year
*Specific "(sport) at the xxxx Olympics" articles
*Closing ceremony articles
*Sporting controversies
*Unsuccessful hosting bids
*National Olympic Committees
;Low
*Most athletes and coaches
*Sporting venues
*Specific "(country) at the xxxx Olympics" articles
*Specific "(sport) at the xxxx Olympics - (event)" articles
*Miscellaneous topics
Please suggest any tweaks, list any complaints, etc.  I will BOLDly implement the scale if there are no objections. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally i'd say "most gold medal winners" probably still would be low importance. My thinking would be that the higher the number of readers an article is likely to get the greater importance we should give it but that will introduce a huge bias towards English speaking/Anglophile nations - Basement12 (T.C) 04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think importance should be equated with popularity in any significant way.  Of course there is some correlation, but its probably not helpful to write the association into the "rules."  As far as gold medal winners goes, it does seem to be the case they the majority of gold medal winners are currently rated "mid" ... it should probably be limited to just individual event medalists for the "automatic" mid classification though.  I don't think every member of Germany's 2008 Men's Field Hockey team should be mid importance, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:25, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Not quite sure what this comment is supposed to mean... Do you have a suggested level of importance for these topics? --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance scale