MyWiki:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Assessment
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Sidebar}}
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 importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Frequently asked questions
[edit source]- 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.
Instructions
[edit source]Quality assessments
[edit source]An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WPBiography|filmbio-work-group=yes}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.
The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):
For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:
| Category | (for categories; adds them to the Category-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages category) | Category | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Draft | (for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages category) | Draft | |
| File | (for files and timed text; adds them to the File-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages category) | File | |
| Project | (for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages category) | Project | |
| Template | (for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages category) | Template |
The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:
| Disambig | (for disambiguation pages; adds them to the Disambig-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages category) | Disambig | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Redirect | (for redirect pages; adds them to the Redirect-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages category) | Redirect |
After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.
Quality scale
[edit source]| 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:{{Wikipedia:Featured article criteria}}
|
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. | Angelina Jolie (as of July 2009) |
| 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:{{Wikipedia:Featured list criteria}}
|
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 actors nominated for two Academy Awards in the same year (as of July 2009) |
 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:
{{Wikipedia:Content assessment/A-Class criteria|raw=yes}} |
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. | Milla Jovovich (as of June 2009) |
 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
{{Wikipedia:Good article criteria}}
|
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. | Sean Bean (as of July 2009) |
| 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
{{Wikipedia:Content assessment/B-Class criteria|raw=yes}}
|
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. | Orlando Bloom (as of July 2009) |
| 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. | Jessica Biel (as of July 2009) |
| 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:
|
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. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. | Bruce Dern (as of July 2009) |
| 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. | Geoffrey Lewis (as of July 2009) |
| 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 actors |
Priority assessment
[edit source]An article's priority assessment is generated from the filmbio-priority parameter in the {{WPBiography}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WPBiography| ... | filmbio-work-group=yes | filmbio-priority=??? | ...}}
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top – adds articles to Category:Top-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- High – adds articles to Category:High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Mid – adds articles to Category:Mid-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
- Low – adds articles to Category:Low-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
Priority scale
[edit source]| 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. | Bette Davis Woody Allen |
| 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. | Reese Witherspoon Ang Lee |
| 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. | Alec Baldwin Danny Boyle |
| Low | Actors and filmmakers of little interest to non-film buffs and the film industry. | Tor Johnson |
Requesting an assessment
[edit source]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.
- Cyrus Ahanchian Please assess this new article. His bio was deleted in 2010 for 'lack of notability', just one month after he won a landmark court case for copyrights on National Lampoon's TV: The Movie. IMO his bio should not have been deleted, as there was and still is clear evidence of notability, particularly in reliable sources about the court case. New case laws also resulted from the court case, which are particularly important to the film making industry. Amirah talk 10:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
- Bryan Cranston – Has not been officially assessed by this project since 2010. A rating was added in July 2012 but by the WikiProject California. After looking over the article it seems plausible to take it to take it to GA, but may require more prose expansion. Mkdwtalk 22:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
- Emily VanCamp – I have just completed a total overhaul of this article, currently rated as "Start class". I believe it may now belong higher on the scale. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
- Sid Caesar has been extensively edited, updated and expanded by multiple editors on the occasion of his death, and prior to being featured in RD at In the News. Dwpaul Talk 18:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Lizabeth Scott has been expanded from start-class. Jamesena (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Raúl Castillo – I created this article, but it was inaccurately assessed as part of the Sports Project (due to similarity to the athlete Raul Castillo. Requesting overall correct project reassessment from this project. Thank you! Luminum (talk) 07:07, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
- James Williamson (film pioneer) – I have just completed an extension of this article, last rated as "Stub class" in 2007, and would appreciate re-assessment and advice. Thanks! Mutt (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
- Kiff VandenHeuvel - Newly created article as the first edit by a new account and then expanded upon by an SPA IP editor. Article was prodded, but that was removed. Would somebody from FILMBIO take a look at this and see if this person satisfies WP:NACTOR? At first glance, it does seem iffy and I have not been able to find any real significant coverage through googling, so it sort of seems like WP:TOOSOON. Perhaps someone else might have better luck. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Roshan Ravindra - (talk) 15.35, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
- Kireeti Damaraju - Newly created article, please review it.Randcrazyedit (talk)
- Artie Lange — Needs a reassessment following edits. Thank you! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
- Niall Matter – Requesting reassessment following updates. The page is still classified as a Stub, but has progressed beyond that point. Thank you. AutumnKing (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Andrea Brooks – Newly created article. Thank you. AutumnKing (talk) 10:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- @Autumnking2012: My off-the-cuff assessment is that the subject does not pass WP:NACTOR (for example, she has never had a "main role" on a TV series), and thus should not have a standalone article. I think you need to find more mainline sourcing to justify that one, or it's likely to be WP:PROD'ed or WP:AfD'ed as WP:TOOSOON. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
- Danish Taimoor – Actor SahabAliwadia 15:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
- Luke Roskell – a new article I created today; still early in his career so there isn't much information available, online or otherwise; I would greatly enjoy your assessment and any tips you may share in order to make the entry as complete as possible given its limitations. --Luisftd (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not going to rate it myself, right now – but it's borderline Start-class (and "low" priority to WP:FILMBIO). One or two more sources would cinch it as Start-class. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Donald Shebib -- I have spent a lot of time bringing what was a stub up to a decent level, after noticing that the filmography was a mess copies from Northern Stars and after writing two articles for more of the films once the filmography was done (I know had enough articles in my mind to write a full article on the director. I am always on the fence about what is C vs B and try to avoid rating my own work anyway unless it's obvious.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
- Jim Kelly (martial artist) -- I've added references for everything now, more substantive material, and clarified some of the writing. Thanks! Sean Barnett (talk) 03:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
- Amanda Swisten I have significantly expanded upon this article by adding new information, new sections and images to the original stub. Can this article be ranked as B class article? Recapbean (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Article quality - current status
[edit source]{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by quality statistics}}
Popular pages
[edit source]There is a list of popular pages, ordered by number of views, a bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles.
Assessment log
[edit source]- 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/Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by quality log}}
Worklist
[edit source]- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by quality}}