Television
articles | Importance | | Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | | Quality |  FA | 1 | 6 | 11 | 17 | 16 | 51 | | FL | | 1 | 13 | 21 | 25 | 60 |  A | | 1 | 2 | 1 | | 4 |  GA | 1 | 13 | 36 | 95 | 84 | 229 | | B | 23 | 73 | 154 | 141 | 152 | 543 | | C | 2 | 21 | 96 | 137 | 115 | 371 | | Start | 20 | 149 | 566 | 2196 | 1193 | 4124 | | Stub | 2 | 14 | 94 | 2169 | 1724 | 4003 | | List | | 9 | 120 | 435 | 318 | 882 | | Assessed | 49 | 287 | 1092 | 5212 | 3627 | 10267 | | Unassessed | 3 | 7 | 6 | 154 | 6996 | 7166 | | Total | 52 | 294 | 1098 | 5366 | 10623 | 17433 | 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). [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 {{WikiProject Television}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject Television | class= | importance= }} The following values may be used for the class parameter: 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. For a non-article, such as a Category, Image, 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. [edit] Quality scale WikiProject article quality grading scheme | Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | | FA | The article has attained featured article status. | More detailed criteria | | The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. - It is—
- (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
- (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
- (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
- (e) 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.
- It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
- (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
- (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
- (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
- Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
- Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
| | 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. | Brazilian cruiser Bahia
(as of November 2009) | | A | The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, 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:How to write a great article. 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, WikiProject Films). | | Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help. | Cologne War
(as of October 2009) | | GA | The article has attained good article status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the good article criteria: - Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Factually accurate and verifiable:
- (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
| | Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. | 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. | Typhoon Elsie (1989)
(as of November 2009) |  B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the six B-Class criteria: - The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.
- 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.
- 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.
- The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
- The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
- The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | KV55
(as of November 2009) |  C | 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. | More detailed criteria | | 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. | Architecture of Denmark
(as of November 2009) |  Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. | More detailed criteria | | The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. | | Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Real analysis
(as of November 2006) |  Stub | A very basic description of the topic. | More detailed criteria | | The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. | | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. | Geodia gibberosa
(as of July 2009) | | FL | The article has attained featured list status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the featured list criteria: - Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
- Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
- Comprehensiveness.
- (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
- (b) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
- Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
- Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
- 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. | Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
(as of February 2009) |  List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 aikidoka
(as of June 2007) | [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 (~~~~). - Television program has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 02:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- Lunar Jim. Article was substantially improved by adding a chart of a list of episodes. -- Myfavouritecolourispink 02:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Assessed as Start. Lacks plot, production, reception, references, etc. Sarilox (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- "Close to Home (UK TV series)" I have created this article, and would greatly appreciate your assessment and edits. Many thanks for anything you are able to add! Nickgp76 (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
- Partially cleaned up and assessed to C class. Sarilox (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
- I Love Money - I need an assesment of both quality and importance. Previously it was Start and High, but someone changed it to GA and TOP without discussion or anything. I will revert to Start and High, I am basically asking for an assesment of importance, because I do not feel it is HIGH priority.<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 01:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Assessed as Start. Article prose is simply a one paragraph description of each season. Infobox looks good except that the host is not "starring" in the show. Sarilox (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Ross Kemp in Afghanistan - Request for reassessment. This article really has come a long way since i last asked for an assessment. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
- Children in Need 2008 has been heavily updated during it's broadcast and is now no longer a stub Pedgeth (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Bonanza- Has not been rated. IndulgentReader (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bewitched - Currently rated as start class, the article has gone through major changes since, including recently significant improvements by two authors, including restructuring, references, removal of irrelevant information and redundancies, and rewrite of content for encyclopedic style and consistent language. Suggestions welcome, but I believe it is well past the "start" status. -Njsustain (talk) 10:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- White Collar (TV series) - I started this article for the upcoming show earlier today using most information available. It should be in no danger of being deleted, since it is definitely in production. I'm afraid, however, that it is merely a Start-Class, and would like to request a rating and help on expanding it. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Assessed as Start. Lacks production, reception and reliable sources. The one reliable source really adds nothing to the article. Sarilox (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Kelly Taylor (90210) -- Much appreciated whenever anyone finds the time. -- James26 (talk) 09:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Blair Waldorf -- References increased (from 18 to 40, though some are still needed). Information added. Assessment would be appreciated when time permits. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
- Assessed as C class by another editor. I agree with that assessment. Sarilox (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons — B-class on its first assessment in November 2007; has been added to considerably since then. Much more thorough and much better sourced in my view. I was wondering if it might now stand a chance of reaching GA-status and wanted to check here first before trying WP:GAN. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. SuperMarioMan (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Jesse G. James - This is one of the most-viewed articles in the scope of WikiProject Motorcycling, but until now has not been tagged as a WikiProject TV article.--Dbratland (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that this article is within the scope of this project. His shows are, but not his biography. Sarilox (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
- Naomi Clark -- new content and sources added. I'd appreciate the assessment when time permits. -- James26 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2009 (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.  | This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record. | [edit] November 24, 2009 [edit] November 19, 2009 [edit] November 14, 2009 [edit] November 10, 2009 [edit] November 6, 2009 [edit] October 30, 2009 Log truncated as it is too huge! |
