Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Films

You have new messages (last change).

WikiProject Films

General information(edit · changes)

Main Project Page
Participants
Announcements
Project category
Project banner
Film Portal
Possible film AfDs
- Fiction/The Arts
- Media/Music

Departments

Infoboxes and Templates

Things you can do (edit)

Main List of Tasks

Contribute to the WikiProject Films
Join the project and add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your talk page
Copyedit
Create
Critique
Discuss
Expand
Add infobox
Too much trivia
Change list to prose
Review

Film article statistics

This list is generated automatically every night around 3 AM UTC.
view full worklist

Statistics

Film articles	Importance
Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
FA	9	13	8	1	10	41
A	2		3			5
GA	7	12	20	7	11	57
B	67	174	119	113	481	954
Start	24	182	238	330	5078	5852
Stub	1	82	280	3270	11883	15516
Assessed	110	463	668	3721	17463	22425
Unassessed	0	0	0	0	3	3
Total	110	463	668	3721	17466	22428

Welcome to the assessment department of the Film WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Film 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 {{Film}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Film articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

1 Frequently asked questions
2 Instructions
3 Statistics
4 Assessment log
5 Worklist

[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 Film WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Film}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Film
|class=
|importance=
}}

[edit] Quality scale

This category contains film articles graded according to the Wikipedia 1.0 Assessment Scale. If you would like to help grade them, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Films#Article grading.

Do not put items in this category. Put them in the appropriate category by adding or editing the film's {{Film}} or {{FilmsWikiProject}} Talk page tag, as follows:

{{ Film | class=FA }}
{{ Film | class=A }}
{{ Film | class=GA }}
{{ Film | class=B }}
{{ Film | class=Start }}
{{ Film | class=Stub }}
{{ Film | class=NA }}
{{ Film | class=List }}
{{ Film | class=Cat }}
{{ Film | class=Template}}
{{ Film | class=Disambig }}

Exclusive class for this project only are:

{{ Film | class=Future }} - For Future Films

Note: You should not assign any article GA or FA grades arbitrarily. These grades must pass through official Wikipedia channels.

These labels refer to this grading scheme:

**Article progress grading scheme**
Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, 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.	Jaws (film) (as of October 2006)
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. 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. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	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 would be helpful at this stage.	The Lord of the Rings film trilogy (as of Oct 2006)
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, 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.	Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (as of Sep 2006)
B {{B-Class}}	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	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 would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.	Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.	Back to the Future (as of Oct 2006)
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element such as a standard infobox. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious 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	Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded.	Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage.	Beethoven (film) (as of Sep 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful.	A Bullet for the General (as of Sep 2006)
List {{List-Class}}	This page is a list.			Lists of films (as of Oct 2006)
NA {{NA-Class}}	The page is not an article and does not require a rating.			WP:FILMS
Cat {{Cat-Class}}	This page is a category related to WikiProject Films.			Category:Film stubs
Template {{Template-Class}}	This page is a template related to WikiProject Films.			{{Film}}
Dab {{Disambig-Class}}	This page is a disambiguation page related to WikiProject Films.			London (film) (as of Oct 2006)
WikiProject Film Related Class
Future {{Future-Class}}	The article exists of a future film. Contents of these articles can change rapidly and could be outright deleted per WP:NOT.	These articles should get attention closer to their supposed release date.		Day Zero (as of July 2006)

This category is self-reference (see Avoid self-references).

[edit] Priority scale

Priority must be regarded as a relative term. If priority values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project and to the work groups the Film falls under. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. The criteria used for rating article priority 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).

These film related articles have been rated on the importance scale.

[edit] Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new quality rating for it, please feel free to list it below. NOTE: This is only to rate the article on quality - you may or may not get feedback on the article. If you desire a review, use the WP:FILMS peer review process or the regular peer review process. If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Seeking an A-class rating? We suggest you submit it for a Peer Review to allow us more time to respond and review. Be sure to first read what qualifies as an A rating before doing so though.

Add requests to the bottom of this list.

~~Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (film)~~
- It's ready for a peer reviw. Cbrown1023 22:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  - B is the highest rating it can be for now.--Supernumerary 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Inferno (1980 film)~~
- Rated some time ago at "Start" quality. It needs much more expansion before going thru a peer review but I believe right now it is a solid B-Class article. Please take a look and regrade if you agree. Thanks.-Hal Raglan 22:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Upgraded to B-class.--Supernumerary 00:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Obsession (film)~~
- Article still needs some work, with the "Production" section requiring great expansion, but I think overall its good enough at the moment to deserve a "B".-Hal Raglan 14:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I've hesitantly upgraded the article to B-class. The tipping point is that you plan to add more to the production, which will make it a sure B.--Supernumerary 23:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
~~The Grateful Dead Movie~~
- This article has a stub rating, which was accurate at the time, but I'm asking for it to be reassessed as a start. Any tips on how to work towards getting a B would be a bonus. Thanks. -- Mudwater 03:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I've changed the article rating from "stub" to "start". If anyone has any additional comments on the rating of this article, please reply here, or update the article's discussion page. -- Mudwater 13:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
~~The Shooting~~
- Currently has a "Start" rating, but the article has been rewritten and expanded recently. I think it should now easily earn a "B", but that will be for others to decide.-Hal Raglan 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  
  It's missing a cast list. --Crzy cheetah 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast list added.-Hal Raglan 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Planet of the Vampires~~
- This was given a "Start" rating some time ago. Much has been added to the article since then. In my opinion this should satisfy the "B"-rating requirements.-Hal Raglan 14:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  
  It's missing a cast list.--Crzy cheetah 07:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Cast list added.-Hal Raglan 03:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Upgraded to B-class.--Crzy cheetah 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

~~The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring~~
- Requesting input on the importance assessment of this article. There was a revert-war between Mid- and Top- importance; I've started a discussion on the talk page about the issue, and am requesting more input here. (Didn't see a section for requeting importance assessments.) Mangojuice^talk 20:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  - thats because the whole concept of importance assessments is under review. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Importance scale revisited. We're using Importance=Disputed, or Importance=N/A for now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.2.139.211 (talk • contribs).
~~Dementia 13~~
- Adding another title I've been expanding off and on for some time now. Assessed months ago with a "Start" rating, but the article, I think, should now definitely earn a "B", if anybody would care to read it.-Hal Raglan 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added the missing Cast section (If you think some other actor should be there, add him/her). As you said, it really earned a "B" class. Good job! You can even nominate it for GA. --Crzy cheetah 07:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Varalaru - History of Godfather~~
- This was given a "Start" rating a long time ago. Much has been added to the article since then, so i believe it should be re-rated. - King Dracula 17:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I've assessed it at B. Keep adding sources and look over the GA criteria and consider nominating it for GA once the article has met the criteria. --Nehrams2020 03:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

~~Marjorie Morningstar (film)~~ Recently expanded it greatly from a stub. Think is should be reevaluated. Would appreciate a peer review.
- I'll give it a start for now. If you would like a peer review follow the instructions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review. Good work so far. --Nehrams2020 08:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
~~Billa (2007 film)~~
- This was given a "Start" rating some time ago. Much has been added to the article since then. In my opinion this should satisfy the "B"-rating requirements. - King Dracula 23:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I rated it as future class for now, until the film is released. --Nehrams2020 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

~~The Black Stallion (film)~~
- The article has been living with a "Stub" class for a long time, but I think it has outgrown that stage now. --Edokter (Talk) 13:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it should remain as a stub until a few more things are added. According to the template on the talk page, it just needs a few more categories and two more sections of information. The intro already talks about the sequel and awards, consider either moving that down into their own respective sections and expanding upon them. Once these are added, there shouldn't be a problem to rating it as a start. --Nehrams2020 19:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That'll do it. Start class. Doctor Sunshine talk 02:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

~~A World Without Thieves~~
- Currently rated as stub-class. --Plastictv 12:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Upgraded to start class. --Nehrams2020 16:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Cell Phone (film)~~
- Newly created article. Currently ungraded. --Plastictv 13:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

As long as it meets the guidelines of the template on the talk page (when it's currently a stub), you can upgrade it to start. --Nehrams2020 20:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Snow Dogs~~
- Completely rewritten article - Was rated as a stub before -- ReneRomann 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Add a cast list, categories for country and language, a source and fair use rationale for the movie poster, and for the award section, sound track is one word. Once these are fixed, you can reassess it to Start class. --Nehrams2020 22:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Zodiac (film)~~
- A lot of work has been put into this entry and I think it deserves an increase in importance. Count Ringworm 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Importance is not that high of a priority for articles within our project, the main thing to focus on is its class (which is currently B, what I would have given it). I'd recommend continuing to add sources and updating the box office figures. Wait a few more weeks until the excitement dies down and then consider nominating it for GA. Make sure to look over the GA criteria first. --Nehrams2020 17:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Song of the South~~

Is rated Start-class, but looks better than that. igordebraga ≠ 21:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessed to B, looks like it will soon become a GA at this point. --Nehrams2020 22:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Wishmaster~~

Rated stub-class; I've rewritten and expanded the article, would appreciate reassessment. Thanks! Flummery 20:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I have assessed to start class, good work so far. Some things you can look to fix very easily is to add fair use rationales to the two images and add categories for the year the film was released, the country, and genres. If you want keep improving it to B or GA, consider getting a peer review to see what needs to be improved. --Nehrams2020 22:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Balzac and the Little Chinese Seamstress (film)~~
- Recent expansion done. Appreciate a revaluation. --Plastictv 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Add a fair use rationale for the poster, categories for the genre(s), and add one other section of information (box office, reception, DVD release, etc.). Once these are added, it can be reassessed to Start. --Nehrams2020 21:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Plastictv 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job, Start class. --Nehrams2020 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Cinderella III: A Twist in Time~~
- It was released in February and no longer qualifies as Future-class. --Annie D 00:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessed as Start class. --Nehrams2020 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

~~Devils on the Doorstep~~
- Currently assess as stub. Appreciate a revalution. --Plastictv 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Upgraded to Start class. --Nehrams2020 17:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Devils on the Doorstep
- Some further expansion done. Fair-use rationale for image used added. See if this might qualify for a B. --Plastictv 05:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Assessed as B class. Make sure to add some categories for the genre(s). Keep working on it and see if you can get it to GA. --Nehrams2020 17:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Current status

Film articles		Importance
Film articles		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	9	13	8	1	10	41
	A	2		3			5
	GA	7	12	20	7	11	57
	B	67	174	119	113	481	954
	Start	24	182	238	330	5078	5852
	Stub	1	82	280	3270	11883	15516
	Assessed	110	463	668	3721	17463	22425
	Unassessed	0	0	0	0	3	3
	Total	110	463	668	3721	17466	22428

[edit] Historical counts

All figures given for the *end* of each month
	August 2006		September 2006		October 2006		November 2006		December 2006		January 2007		February 2007
FA	22	.181 %	23	.183 %	31	.201 %	32	.196 %	35	.201 %	38	.203 %	39	.187 %
A	2	.01 %	5	.03 %	10	.04 %	10	.06 %	6	.03 %	5	.02 %	6	.02 %
GA	14	.115 %	11	.087 %	18	.116 %	21	.128 %	28	.160 %	39	.209 %	46	.221 %
B	348	2.87 %	540	4.28 %	828	5.35 %	853	5.21 %	861	4.95 %	905	4.85 %	928	4.46 %
Start	1438	11.85 %	3455	27.42 %	5216	33.73 %	5392	32.94 %	5612	32.26 %	5612	30.83 %	5816	27.96 %
Stub	2560	21.1 %	6676	52.98 %	9357	60.52 %	10055	73.72 %	10842	62.33 %	11919	63.82 %	13967	67.14 %
Unassessed	7740	63.84 %	1889	14.99 %	0	0 %	5	.03 %	9	.05 %	12	.06 %	1	.04 %
Total	12124		12599		15460		16368		17393		18677		20803

[edit] Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class.
	August 2006		September 2006		October 2006		November 2006		December 2006		January 2007		February 2007
FA	+1	+104.76 %	+1	+104.55 %	+8	+134.78 %	+1	+103.22 %	+3	+109.38 %	+3	+108.57 %	+1	+102.63 %
A	+1	+200.00 %	+3	+250.00 %	+5	+200.00 %	+0	+0 %	-4	-66.66 %	-1	-12.00 %	+1	+120.00 %
GA	+2	+166.66 %	-3	+78.57 %	+7	+163.63 %	+3	+116.66 %	+7	+133.33 %	+11	+139.29 %	+7	+117.95 %
B	+110	+146.22 %	+192	+155.17 %	+288	+153.33 %	+25	+103.01 %	+18	+102.13 %	+44	+105.11 %	+23	+102.54 %
Start	+847	+243.32 %	+2017	+240.26 %	+1761	+150.97 %	+176	+103.37 %	+242	+104.50 %	+/-0	+/- 0	+204	+103.64 %
Stub	+1484	+237.92 %	+4116	+260.78 %	+2681	+140.16 %	+698	+107.45 %	+890	+108.95 %	+1077	+109.93 %	+2048	+114.92 %
Unassessed	-1608	-82.80 %	-5851	-24.41 %	-1889	-0 %	+5	Undefined	+3	+175 %	+3	+175 %	-11	-0.83 %
Total	+837	+107.42 %	+475	+103.92 %	+2861	+122.71 %	+908	+105.87 %	+1158	+107.13 %	+1137	+107.38 %	+2273	+199.91 %