Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment: Difference between revisions
Forbesy 777 (talk | contribs) m →2016: Fixed wikilink in my previous edit which accidentally linked to the wrong article |
TheBigFish (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 317: | Line 317: | ||
:*Article was assessed by [[User:Bcschneider53|Bcschneider53]] giving it a C rating. [[User:Forbesy 777|Forbesy 777]] ([[User talk:Forbesy 777|talk]]) 02:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
:*Article was assessed by [[User:Bcschneider53|Bcschneider53]] giving it a C rating. [[User:Forbesy 777|Forbesy 777]] ([[User talk:Forbesy 777|talk]]) 02:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
* [[MTN (TV station)]] - Currently unrated, but [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia|WikiProject Australia]] has it rated as 'Start'. I believe it is currently more likely a 'C'. I requested an assessment in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment#August 2016|August]] by WikiProject Australia but the article is yet to be assessed, leaving me to assume the WikiProject is inactive. I have contributed largely to the article and as such cannot give an unbiased opinion. [[User:Forbesy 777|Forbesy 777]] ([[User talk:Forbesy 777|talk]]) 02:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
* [[MTN (TV station)]] - Currently unrated, but [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia|WikiProject Australia]] has it rated as 'Start'. I believe it is currently more likely a 'C'. I requested an assessment in [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/Assessment#August 2016|August]] by WikiProject Australia but the article is yet to be assessed, leaving me to assume the WikiProject is inactive. I have contributed largely to the article and as such cannot give an unbiased opinion. [[User:Forbesy 777|Forbesy 777]] ([[User talk:Forbesy 777|talk]]) 02:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
*[[Scorpion (TV Series)]] Currently rated start-class; I've done a bit of cleanup and would appreciate an outside perspective on how it looks and what can still be improved. [[User:TheBigFish|TheBigFish]] ([[User talk:TheBigFish|talk]]) 03:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Statistics == |
== Statistics == |
Revision as of 03:30, 27 November 2016
Main | Assessment | Showcase | Help | Templates | Descendant WikiProjects and task forces | Portal | Deletion sorting |
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Television. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's television 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 Television}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Television articles by quality and Category:Television articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist (Index · Statistics · Log).
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 Television 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
Quality assessments
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Television}} 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 television articles) | FA | |
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class television articles) | A | |
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class television articles) | GA | |
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class television articles) | B | |
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class television articles) | C | |
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class television articles) | Start | |
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class television articles) | Stub | |
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class television articles) | FL | |
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class television articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
For a non-article, such as a Category, File, Template, or Project page, placing the {{WikiProject Television}} banner on the talk page, without a class parameter, will automatically put the page in the appropriate class category.
Quality scale
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:
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.
|
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. | House (TV series) |
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:
|
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 Awake episodes |
FM | Pictures that have attained featured picture status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. More detailed criteria
A featured picture:
|
The page contains a featured image, sound clip or other media-related content. | Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. | File:Big&Small edit 1.jpg |
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:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history). |
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. | Grey's Anatomy |
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
A good article is:
|
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. | DuMont Television Network |
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
|
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. | Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series) |
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. | Blackadder |
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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. | Television channel |
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. | Television special |
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 Prison Break episodes |
Category | Any category falls under this class. | Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. | Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. | Category:Television |
Disambig | Any disambiguation page falls under this class. | The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. | Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. | TV (disambiguation) |
File | Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. | The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. | Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. | File:TV-icon-2.svg |
Portal | Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. | Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. | Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. | Portal:Television |
Project | All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. | Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. | Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. | Wikipedia:WikiProject Television |
Redirect | Any redirect falls under this class. | The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. | Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles. | A World of Music (TV Series) |
Template | Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. | Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. | Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. | Template:Infobox television |
NA | Any non-article page that fits no other classification. | The page contains no article content. | Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified. | N/A |
Importance assessment
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Television}} project banner on its talk page:
The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):
Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance television articles) | Top | |
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance television articles) | High | |
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance television articles) | Mid | |
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance television articles) | Low | |
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance television articles) | NA | |
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance television articles) | ??? |
Importance scale
Don't worry too much about assessing for Importance. It's helpful to have the most vital television articles tagged as Top importance so they can be easily identified as the highest priority, but less influential television articles don't really need to be tagged for importance.
Article importance grading scheme
Importance | Criteria | Example |
---|---|---|
Top | Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field. | Television |
High | Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. | Broadcasting |
Mid | Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. | BBC Television Centre |
Low | Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article. | Dollhouse (TV series) |
NA | Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. | Template:WikiProject Television |
??? | Subject importance has not yet been assessed. | N/A |
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. Please add new entries to the bottom of the 2016 list and sign with four tildes (~~~~).
2010
2010 answered assessments |
---|
*
|
2011
2011 answered assessments |
---|
*
|
2012
2012 answered assessments |
---|
*
|
2013
2013 answered assessments |
---|
*
|
2014
2014 assessments (2 unassessed) |
---|
*
(Note: Discussion moved to Assessment talkpage.)
|
2015
2015 answered assessments |
---|
*
|
2016
Cooking with Dog- New article on popular Japanese cooking web series in need of first assessment. Luminum (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Assessed with this edit. — Wyliepedia 16:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
List of nonlinear narrative television series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzalogallard (talk • contribs) 16:39, June 23, 2016 (UTC–4)
- It's a list. That's all it will ever be. — Wyliepedia 04:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Sky News Australia- Has existed for a long time but never received an assessment. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Start class to match WPAUS. — Wyliepedia 04:57, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sky News Australia - Relisting for assessment. Previous assessor matched another WikiProject's rating, made in 2008, and the page has changed significantly since then. -- Whats new?(talk) 08:10, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: To be honest, WPTV covers mostly television series and episodic programs, not news channels, despite being asked to participate in news deletion discussions. — Wyliepedia 18:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree: This WikiProject covers television related articles. A channel is television related. CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera English, etc all are tagged WPTV. Just looking for objective rating for the article, I'm too close to give it one. -- Whats new?(talk) 04:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Love, Inc.: Listing for assessment after massive overhaul. Aoba47 (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- B class. I cleaned up the infobox and episode table to let them breathe. The ratings box seems redundant to the prose below, but some people like that. None of that matters where assessment is concerned. Nice retooling! — Wyliepedia 12:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @CAWylie: Thank you for your review and edits. I was having a lot of difficulty with cleaning up the infobox and episode table so I greatly appreciate that. I was also not certain about the ratings box either. I have added it since I noticed it on other articles about television shows, but I agree with your point that it is redundant considering the same information is in the prose. This is my first time working on an article about a television series so I am still in the process of learning it. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Shannen Says: Listing for assessment after I recently created this page. Aoba47 (talk) 01:54, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
- Aaj Ki Raat Hai Zindagi Listing the article for assessment to meet the criteria of B-class. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 16:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Voice (Indian TV series) Listing the article for assessment to meet the criteria of GA or B-class. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The Kapil Sharma Show Listing the article for assessment to meet the criteria of GA or B-class. Mr. Smart ℒION ⋠☎️✍⋡ 17:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hannah Montana – Rated as 'B' class back in March 2007, but considering it was a MOS:TV nightmare when I got to it yesterday, I'm skeptical it's still 'B'-class. P.S. I'm requesting that the reviewer contact me directly me about their assessment on this, as I'm still trying to figure out what people are looking for in 'B'-class articles for WP:TV – TIA! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Portlandia (season 1)- Request initial rating. Articles on seasons 2-5 also need assessment. Wiki-Oregon team isn't sure how to rate these articles; we'll follow your rating.--Orygun (talk) 05:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)- Assessed all, season 6 too, and added other relevant WikiProject. These are just List-class, and Low-importance as "included to cover a specific part of a notable article". nyuszika7h (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
- Mitch Buchannon - Over the summer I added to and revised this particular article. I would appreciate an assessment. Thanks!
- Orange Man (advertisement) - Commercial rated Start, seems much better than that. igordebraga ≠ 03:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Have You Been Paying Attention?- Rated as 'Stub' Class but given the amount of detail it currently has I would assume it is more likely a 'C'. However, as I have been a main contributor to the article I cannot provide an unbiased assessment. Forbesy 777 (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Article was assessed by Bcschneider53 giving it a C rating. Forbesy 777 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- MTN (TV station) - Currently unrated, but WikiProject Australia has it rated as 'Start'. I believe it is currently more likely a 'C'. I requested an assessment in August by WikiProject Australia but the article is yet to be assessed, leaving me to assume the WikiProject is inactive. I have contributed largely to the article and as such cannot give an unbiased opinion. Forbesy 777 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- Scorpion (TV Series) Currently rated start-class; I've done a bit of cleanup and would appreciate an outside perspective on how it looks and what can still be improved. TheBigFish (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Statistics
As of 18 November 2024, there are 111,930 articles within the scope of WikiProject Television, of which 547 are featured. This makes up 1.62% of the articles on Wikipedia and 4.69% of featured articles and lists. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 277,149 pages in the project.
Daily log of status changes | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Current Statistics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assessment log
- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
- ^ For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. However, where quite a number of pictures exist, for instance, the moon landing, FPC attempts to select the best of the ones produced.
- ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
- ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.