Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Film
Main pageAssessmentHelpParticipantsCoordinatorsSpotlightOutreachResourcesPortalRecognized content
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
Belgian cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox
Shortcuts

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Film! 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 {{WikiProject 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.

Frequently asked questions

edit
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.

Instructions

edit
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/Summary. (edit | history)

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Film}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class film articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class film articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class film articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class film articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class film articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class film articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class film articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class film articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class film articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class film articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class film articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class film articles) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class film articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class film articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class film articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class film articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class film articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class film articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed film articles) ???

Core articles

edit

In lieu of a moribund importance rating, the project has deprecated the importance parameter in favor of a targeted drive towards "core"-type articles as determined by consensus in external lists and polls rather than individual editorial whim. This work is concentrated at the Core department of this WikiProject.

Film grading scheme

edit
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/Grading scheme. (edit | history)
WikiProject Film article progress grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status.
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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. The Dark Knight
(as of January 2023)
 GA The article has attained good article status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article criteria:

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. 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. Enola Holmes (film)
(as of December 2022)
B The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the five B-Class criteria:
  1. 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.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for a good article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Julieta (film)
(as of July 2016)
C The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.
 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 address cleanup issues. Joy (film)
(as of July 2016)
Start An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. Life Partners
(as of July 2016)
Stub A very basic description of the topic.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.
 Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The Star (2002 film)
(as of July 2016)
 FL The article has attained featured list status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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 highest-grossing films
(as of January 2023)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 2015 box office number-one films in the United States
(as of July 2016)
SIA Meets the criteria of a set index article, which is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. A set index article is not a disambiguation page. Meant for information as well as navigation; should have a clear layout which is easy to follow. A set index article should follow the same style guidelines for a stand-alone list, and can be tagged with {{set index article}}. Film adaptations of Crime and Punishment
(as of November 2015)

Requests for assessment

edit

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. (Note that this is not required; any editor may assess or re-assess an article on their own, if acting in good faith.)

If you assess an article, please strike it off so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Comments are not mandatory and any should be left at the article's talk page; the list below will be wiped periodically.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please list it for peer review instead.

New requests

edit
  • @Isi96: I've left this at start-class because of the lack of sufficient summary and the massive coverage imbalance. It reads more like a "Controversy of Roadrunner" article but missing enough detail about the background of the film even for that focus. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

edit

Current status

edit

Overall project

edit
This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality statistics. (edit | history)
Film pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 191
FL 483
FM 42
A 1
GA 1,431
B 1,528
C 10,742
Start 71,766
Stub 96,143
List 13,230
Category 54,687
Disambig 373
File 111,416
Portal 19
Project 228
Redirect 11,839
Template 9,527
NA 40
Assessed 383,686
Unassessed 14
Total 383,700
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 986,103 Ω = 5.42


Statistics by task force

edit
Film articles by task forces
Quality American cinema Argentine cinema Australian cinema Baltic cinema Belgian cinema British cinema Canadian cinema Chinese cinema Christian films Comic book films Core list Film awards Film festivals Filmmaking
FA 118 1 3 0 0 26 9 3 2 5 22 0 0 2
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GA 921 3 25 0 0 173 59 15 5 95 68 8 1 17
B 880 5 44 1 3 159 63 18 16 85 60 8 8 83
C 5,057 45 272 12 1 921 388 174 59 288 231 68 106 481
Start 26,035 323 1,497 71 8 5,443 2,307 1,811 261 638 147 578 835 2,068
Stub 29,941 1,236 1,756 179 5 6,018 3,632 1,914 155 173 3 489 703 1,828
FL 221 1 3 1 0 40 6 1 0 14 0 258 1 0
List 3,023 117 255 19 1 551 442 373 5 73 0 5,920 685 139
Category 5,710 78 643 73 183 1,401 500 336 106 338 0 812 443 15,049
Disambig 28 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 3 0 8 0 3
File 615 0 3 0 2 55 11 13 4 220 0 18 3 10
Portal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redirect 2,351 159 83 2 1 365 115 28 32 382 0 600 52 403
Template 646 51 0 12 3 135 74 109 5 58 0 705 46 183
NA 22 0 2 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 2 9 2 8
Unassessed 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 75,807 2,019 4,627 371 238 15,303 7,613 4,793 653 2,440 533 9,485 2,888 20,296
Quality French cinema German cinema Indian cinema Italian cinema Japanese cinema Korean cinema New Zealand cinema Nordic cinema Persian cinema Southeast Asian cinema Soviet and post-Soviet cinema Spanish cinema War films
FA 5 5 31 3 5 0 1 0 0 21 1 0 8
A 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GA 47 40 200 32 62 4 15 18 0 33 8 8 48
B 64 40 177 24 74 11 18 19 3 22 12 12 89
C 371 237 1,756 189 412 98 52 138 20 190 76 237 862
Start 2,500 1,408 14,753 1,473 2,097 932 189 829 182 1,667 920 1,086 2,288
Stub 5,736 5,622 10,055 5,340 2,035 769 183 2,689 379 1,277 1,958 1,376 1,405
FL 5 2 112 2 5 3 1 0 0 9 0 1 4
List 390 174 2,137 271 253 249 26 228 23 345 220 193 54
Category 644 390 1,178 442 681 164 108 715 67 609 407 210 597
Disambig 1 2 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
File 32 20 152 13 65 8 4 10 5 3 14 2 9
Portal 0 0 53 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redirect 116 39 979 68 266 24 11 50 9 43 25 24 39
Template 348 163 399 82 101 36 4 135 30 82 60 74 26
NA 3 1 16 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 5
Unassessed 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 10,262 8,144 30,470 −3 −3 −3 −3 −3 −3 −3 −3 −3 −3

Assessment log

edit
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality log

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment&oldid=1254830284"