Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
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]

Quality assessments

[edit]

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):

FA (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category)  FA
FL (for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category)  FL
A (for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category)  GA
B (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category) B
C (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category) C
Start (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category) Start
Stub (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category) Stub
List (for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category) List
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) pages category) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed biography (actors and filmmakers) articles category) ???

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]
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
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.

  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. 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:
  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; 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:
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. 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
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;[1] 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 (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
  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 an A-Class 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.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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:
  • A 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
 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]

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:

Priority scale

[edit]
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]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Article quality - current status

[edit]
Biography (actors and filmmakers) articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 8 27 43 33 111
FL 2 2 12 16
A 1 1
GA 13 43 122 216 3 397
B 44 204 510 643 795 2,196
C 24 161 905 2,848 2 4,924 8,864
Start 4 57 1,001 11,533 8 24,563 37,166
Stub 5 240 14,899 5 31,268 46,417
List 5 54 126 185
Category 10,269 10,269
Disambig 13 13
File 807 807
Project 26 26
Redirect 201 975 1,176
Template 711 711
Other 1 23 68 92
Assessed 93 499 2,829 30,463 12,884 61,679 108,447
Unassessed 1 12 13
Total 93 499 2,829 30,464 12,884 61,691 108,460
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 507,149 Ω = 5.33
[edit]

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]
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.


June 27, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

June 26, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

June 24, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

June 23, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

June 22, 2025

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

June 21, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

Worklist

[edit]
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}}

  1. ^ Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers/Assessment&oldid=1138368638"