Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Television
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 3 3 9 4 13 32
Featured list FL 1 10 6 8 25
A 1 2 1 1 5
Good article GA 4 10 8 40 62
B 19 69 97 78 144 407
Start 18 139 141 924 677 1899
Stub 3 7 57 745 1017 1829
List 4 17 35 56
Assessed 43 224 330 1783 1935 4315
Unassessed 3 2 7 249 5407 5668
Total 46 226 337 2032 7342 9983

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 {{TelevisionWikiProject}} 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).

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 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.

[edit] Instructions

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

{{TelevisionWikiProject
| class=
| importance=
| type=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Use the type parameter to add any of the following classifications:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed television articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
Featured list FL
{{FL-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
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 reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). 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. Durian (as of March 2007)
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 acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process 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. International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B
{{B-Class}}		 Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (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. Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and references.
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. 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. Real analysis (as of November 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. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)


[edit] Importance

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.

[edit] Article importance grading scheme

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

[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. Please add new entries to the bottom of the list and sign with four tildes (~~~~).


  • Heroes (TV Series) - Needs both an importance and quality rating after some extensive improvements made recently--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed and set to B. As its already under peer review, no comments left on the talk page. After the peer review, though, with some copyediting from the LoCE, might be ready to try for GA or FA. Collectonian (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Iggy Arbuckle - Needs both an importance and quality rating. I'd personally rate it -for quality - as GA-class. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed and set to start. Notes left on talk page. Collectonian (talk) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Deal or No Deal (US game show) - Significant improvements and valuable contributions have been made on this article since the last assessment. A new assessment is greatly appreciated. S3884h (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Deal or No Deal Models (US) - This is a first time request. Significant improvements were made to the overall article to give it a more professional look. S3884h (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Malo Korrigan - Made some improvements by translating from French sources. I don't think it's any longer a stub article. Astronaut (talk) 04:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed and set to start. Collectonian (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That 70's Show - First time request. Never rated. IndulgentReader (talk) 15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed and set to start. Article would benefit from editors looking at the TV MOS and fixing accordingly. Collectonian (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • List of Invasion episodes - First time request. Never rated. Blackngold29 (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed and set to start (currently only available option for lists until FLC). Collectonian (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Noble House (TV series) - Have made many changes, needs to be re-rated in both importance and quality. LonelyPker (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed. Remains at stub and added some tags to talk page. Has little content beyond an OR section on differences from novel and a brief cast list. Collectonian (talk) 23:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Ross Kemp in Afghanistan - First time request. Never rated. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed. Set to start. It needs quite a bit of fixing to comply with both the general Wikipedia MoS and TV MoS, and its missing the necessary number of sections to go any higher. Collectonian (talk) 01:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Celia (TV series) - New article, incomplete. Sections being worked on: Remaining four episode summaries, "Books to script" comparisons, Cast-listing and Characters sections, as well as references and citations. I was thinking of making a separate article for each of the episodes and just leave the first few paragraphs of each summarie within this article and simply put a "Continued on Episode Article" at the end or something. T.W. (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed. Set to start. Separate articles for each episode would be a very bad idea, and violate WP:EPISODE. The plots just plain need to be cut down. Per episode 100-300 words is the general guideline, and none of them should have multiple paragraphs. It also needs to be fixed to use the proper {{episode list}} template. It also needs to have the excessive non-free images removed. Collectonian (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Hm, I wasn't sure since each episode is more like an individual film than en episode. I'll try and work on these. T.W. (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Yep, the same limits and formatting would apply. Being 45 minutes, you could maybe go up to 400 words if absolutely necessary. Remember, it should be a succinct plot summary giving the major plot points, including the resolution, without giving a scene by scene description. Collectonian (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Alright, rather than rewrite the two already up I'll try and work them down. I have trouble with "keeping it simple" a lot of the time, especially with things I really like. There have been other articles where my plot summaries have gone embarrassingly long (and haven't been altered yet, ha) =] . T.W. (talk) 02:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ross Kemp in Afghanistan - Request for reassessment. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed. Still start. Looking much better, but still missing the required number of major sections and content. Collectonian (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
  • List of Full House episodes - Request for assessment. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 16:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed. As its a list, it can really only be start unless it goes through FLC. In that regard, it is completely lacking in a lead section, needs better sourcing, and some other fix ups. I've done some minor ones, but if you'd like to take to featured status, I'd recommend looking at some of our more recent featured lists to get some tips on filling out the lead, adding a single appropriate image, and adding references for airdates, titles, and the DVDs (TVShowsOnDVD.com would be better as a non-commercial site). Feel free to message or leave a note on the lists talk page if you have questions. Collectonian (talk) 18:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even Stevens I added a description of Characters and made it into a table. Let me know if you have any opinions notify me on my talk page if you have replied to this. Bit Lordy (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed. Leaving at current class of start. Barely above a stub level. I've undoing your table format in the Characters list. We use bulleted lists, not tables. Please look at our style guide for guidance on how the article can be expanded and improved. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The Adventures of McGee and Me - apparently there is a dispute regarding the current assessment grade which should be given this article. Given that it is about a television program, I would be very grateful if one of the members of this project could assess it, and maybe leave some comments on the talk page about the reasons for giving it whatever grade it is given. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Assessment completed. Assessed to start. Formatting issues, lacking in basic sections, and barely above stub level. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment log

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
Day by day log (long)
Make visible or invisible by clicking Show or Hide, respectively.