Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Biography (actors and filmmakers)
articles
Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 4 7 14 3 28
Good article GA 1 15 36 12 11 75
B 65 84 168 85 334 736
Start 31 61 497 1749 2863 5201
Stub 1 217 2338 11213 13769
Assessed 101 168 932 4187 14421 19809
Unassessed 1 1
Total 101 168 932 4187 14422 19810

Welcome to the assessment department of the Actors and Filmmakers WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's actor and filmmaker related 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 {{WPBiography}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by quality and Category:Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by priority, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

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 Actors and Filmmakers 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.
What if I don't agree with a 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.
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!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

[edit] Instructions

[edit] Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPBiography| ... | class=??? | filmbio-work-group=yes| ...}}
Featured article FA
A
Good article GA
B
Start
Stub
???

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article:


Template
Disambig
Category
NA

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

  • Template (for templates)
  • Dab or Disambig (for disambiguation pages; add pages to Category:Biography disambiguation pages)
  • Cat or Category (for categories)
  • NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary)

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed biography (actors and filmmakers) articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after community assessment, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Wayne Gretzky
A
{{A-Class}}
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received A-class status by the A-class review department. Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject as much as the existence of reputable sources allow it. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review could be helpful at this stage. Yannis Makriyannis
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. Bob Marley
B
{{B-Class}}
Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it may have significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material may have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Editing, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors, would be useful. Alfred Hitchcock (as of July 2006)
Start
{{Start-Class}}
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but does not provide complete information. Has at least one element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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

NOTE: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Having an article on Wikipedia is a passing grade, since it has to pass Notability. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need some improvement to reach B-class

Some readers will find what they are looking for, but many will not. A reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial editing is needed, with material for a complete article missing. The article needs to be built further. A. J. Croce (as of September 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}
Either a very short article or a rough collection of information which is not yet structured as an article.

NOTE: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Having an article on Wikipedia is a passing grade, since it has to pass Notability. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need some improvement to reach Start or B-class

Basic information. A brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Ayesha Al-Taymuriyya‎

[edit] Importance assessment

An article's priority assessment is generated from the priority parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WPBiography| ... | importance=??? | filmbio-work-group=yes | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

[edit] Priority scale

Label Criteria Examples
Top Core topics about actors and filmmakers. Generally, these are people who are extremely notable to the common person. This category should stay limited to approximately 100 members.
High Actors and filmmakers who are well-known in the film industry, to film buffs, and others. These people can reasonably be expected to be included in any print encyclopedia.
Mid Actors and filmmakers that are reasonably notable on a national level within the actors and filmmakers field without necessarily being famous or very notable elsewhere.
Low Actors and filmmakers of little interest to non-film buffs and the film industry.

[edit] 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.


[edit] Assessment log

Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


Archive This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record.


[edit] June 12, 2008

[edit] June 9, 2008

[edit] June 5, 2008

[edit] June 2, 2008

[edit] May 29, 2008

[edit] May 26, 2008

[edit] May 22, 2008

[edit] May 19, 2008

[edit] May 15, 2008

[edit] May 12, 2008

[edit] May 6, 2008

[edit] April 23, 2008

[edit] April 16, 2008

[edit] April 7, 2008

[edit] April 3, 2008

[edit] March 28, 2008

[edit] March 23, 2008

[edit] March 19, 2008

[edit] March 16, 2008

[edit] March 12, 2008

[edit] March 5, 2008

[edit] February 28, 2008

[edit] February 25, 2008

[edit] February 19, 2008

Log truncated as it is too huge!