[edit] Assessment The template to use is {{WikiProject Pornography}} on the article talk page, specifically {{WikiProject Pornography | small = | listas = | class = choices are: Stub, Start, C, B, GA, A, FA, NA (not applicable/non-article), List | importance = choices are: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA }} That's the basic procedure. Additional hints: - The importance rating can be different for every project, but the quality (-Class) rating should be the same for all of them.
- If the article talk page already uses {{Pornstars}}, delete that and replace it with {{WikiProject Pornography}}, because even though they have the same effect, that makes the MetaData tool work better.
See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment for more general information about assessment; this page covers the details specific to our project. [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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead. Please archive requests that are complete. Please place new requests (in the format, # [[article name]] -- ~~~~ ) at the bottom of the list. - Omorashi -- Fsecret (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Quality scale See Category:Pornography articles by quality. Note that we can't give out GA or FA quality tags, there are separate Wikipedia processes for that. Also, be very sparing giving out A-Class tags; in other words, basically don't do it. So this means that there are only 4 quality tags that can be put on all but the most exceptional articles: Stub, Start, C or B-Class. Note that given the nature of this specific project, most of the interesting content in our articles is going to be at least somewhat controversial. That means that for a high quality article we need more inline citations than an article from another WikiProject on, say, European architecture, or Medieval history. Article progress grading scheme | Label | Category | Description | Examples (as of 2007-07-19) |  FA
{{FA-Class}} | Category:FA-Class Pornography articles | Among the best articles in the Wikipedia; among the best articles that can be written on the subject. Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. | |  A
{{A-Class}} | Category:A-Class Pornography articles | We don't have the resources of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, so can't do a separate A-class review department, but let's just be very careful in marking pages A-Class. If you don't believe this is within a few minor tweaks of passing as a Wikipedia:Featured article candidate, don't mark it A-Class. FAC reviewers are generally even tougher than you think, and some will go out of their way to be even tougher for something as controversial as pornography. An A-Class article should be comprehensive, well written, thoroughly referenced, not have any citation-needed or NPOV or similar controversial tags; basically no problems at all. Compare to our two Wikipedia:Featured articles, above; an A-Class article should look something like one of those. | (None; there's a reason for that.) |  GA
{{GA-Class}} | Category:GA-Class Pornography articles | 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 good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article 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. | | B
{{B-Class}} | Category:B-Class Pornography articles | Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article, even if it's not as polished. Again, compare to our two FAs -- a B-Class needs to, roughly, have more than half of that. It has at least some references for this content. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Note that many porn stars or porn films just don't have enough Wikipedia:reliable source references available to ever make it this high: it probably takes a book, or an in-depth documentary, or several long, in-depth magazine articles, or half-a-dozen average length articles, devoted to the subject, to provide enough actual content. If an article only has a few paragraphs of actual prose text besides lists of film appearances, awards, and other statistics, it's at most Start-Class, not B-Class. 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. | - Traci Lords - could use more text and citations for the controversial content
- Linda Lovelace - a lot of text, but few citations for the controversial content
- Playboy - a lot of content, not clearly organized, not as much actual prose as it looks
- Deep Throat (film) - a lot of content, needs citations
| C
{{C-Class}} | Category:C-Class Pornography articles | 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. 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. | | Start
{{Start-Class}} | Category:Start-Class Pornography articles | Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: - a particularly useful and free licensed image
- many useful and appropriate references or external links that help explain or illustrate the topic
- a subheading that fully, comprehensively treats an important element of the topic
- multiple less comprehensive subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't developed enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. NOTE: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Having an article on Wikipedia is a passing grade, since it has to pass Wikipedia:Notability. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need some improvement to reach B-Class. | | Stub
{{Stub-Class}} | Category:Stub-Class Pornography articles | Either a very short article, no more than 3-10 sentences in length, or of any length but a very rough collection of information that will need much work referencing, organizing, wikifying, trimming, and rewriting to bring it to B-Class level. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. If short, at best a brief, informed dictionary definition; if long, at best requires much effort to find useful content. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. NOTE: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Having an article on Wikipedia is a passing grade, since it has to pass Notability. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need some improvement to reach Start or B-class | | [edit] Importance scale Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment both go into great detail on Quality, but relatively little on Importance. However we can look at other well organized projects to get an idea. We can try to maintain similar ratios. Our current articles are mostly porn stars, from the recent time that this was Wikiproject:Porn Stars, so there are many other articles on glamour models, porn films, magazines, books about pornography, studios or other related topics that could be added. As above, being extremely careful to essentially not add articles to Top-importance, leaves three importance categories. Please note that any individuals fame for achievements outside pornography is irrelevant to our importance rating. We only consider their importance within porn. For example if a pornstar has also appeared in mainstream films, this does not boost their importance rating. Article importance grading scheme | Label | Category | Ratio | Criteria | Examples | Top
{{Top-importance}} | Category:Top-importance Pornography articles | 1-2 in 100 articles, matching Wikipedia:Key article | These articles would be on a very limited number of subjects of utmost notability within pornography, and very well-known even outside pornography. In other words, they have many in depth newspaper articles, academic journal articles, documentaries or books from both mainstream and porn sources devoted to them. Under no circumstances should any individual person be assigned top importance. | Pornography, History of erotic depictions | High
{{High-importance}} | Category:High-importance Pornography articles | approx 1 in 10 articles. | Subjects very important within pornography, and well-known outside pornography. For pornstars we recommend the top 50 list compiled by AVN: as they seem to mostly match the Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 section, where we were asked to list our most important articles; and the Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 section. Any performer not on this list must be the subject of several books, mainstream newspaper articles or academic journal articles. | John Holmes, Traci Lords, Penthouse, Debbie Does Dallas, Danni Ashe. | Mid
{{Mid-importance}} | Category:Mid-importance Pornography articles | 4 in 10 articles | Subjects well known inside pornography. As a rule of thumb, require two or more non-trivial articles written about them outside pornography, important pornography awards (including AVN Awards etc.), or combination thereof. For an actor or actress to be mid importance they must be a member of the AVN Hall of Fame or XRCO Hall of Fame, have multiple important awards, or have been mentioned in multiple books, mainstream newspaper articles or academic journal articles. | Stephanie Swift, Jim South, Fiesta, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Rhonda Jo Petty | Low
{{Low-importance}} | Category:Low-importance Pornography articles | 5 in 10 articles | Subjects not very well known inside or outside pornography. Most of the articles that barely squeaked by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for borderline notability (won one award, was Playmate of the Month, and nothing more) would be low importance. Any actor or actress who has not won multiple pornography awards and has not been discussed in multiple mainstream media sources must be rated low importance. | Paulina James, Black Snake, Jack Napier | [edit] Statistics See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pornography articles by quality statistics Pornography
articles | Importance | | Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | | Quality | | FA | | 1 | | | | 1 | | GA | | 4 | 7 | 3 | | 14 | | B | 4 | 20 | 45 | 14 | | 83 | | C | 4 | 30 | 57 | 23 | 2 | 116 | | Start | 6 | 93 | 538 | 696 | 2 | 1335 | | Stub | | | 176 | 1128 | 4 | 1308 | | List | | 7 | 24 | 29 | | 60 | | Assessed | 14 | 155 | 847 | 1893 | 8 | 2917 | | Unassessed | | | | | 64 | 64 | | Total | 14 | 155 | 847 | 1893 | 72 | 2981 | [edit] Assessment log Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pornography articles by quality log (too large to transclude) |
