Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking
WikiProject Filmmaking
General information (edit · changes)
Departments
Infoboxes and Templates
Things you can do (edit)
Requested articles
Agfa Ansco • Alienbrain • Animo (redirect should be deleted) • Antimatograph • aperture plate • Argentine Society of Cinematographers • Arriflex 16BL • Arriflex 16M • Arriflex 16ST • Arriflex 235 • Arriflex 35BL • Arriflex 765 • Arriflex II • Arriflex III • Arriscan • Arritechno 35 • Association of Brazilian Cinematographers • Association of Czech Cinematographers • Austrian Association of Cinematographers • Avid Cinema • Avid Interplay • Avid MCXpress • Avid Mojo • Avid Videoshop • Avid Xpress • backfocus • backlit animation • Belgian Society of Cinematographers • Birtac • British Film Commission • Bulgarian Society of Cinematographers • casting agency • Champion Motion Picture Company • Chimera (filmmaking) • Cinema Camera Club • Cinema Products • Danish Society of Cinematographers • DeLuxe Labs • Deutsche Universal-Film AG • Digital Cinema Distribution Master • Dolby Digital Surround EX • DS Nitris • DVCPROHD • Elite Optics • film composer • Finnish Society of Cinematographers • fluid head • Fusion camera • geared head • George Kleine Productions • high-speed filming • Hungarian Society of Cinematographers • image plane (dab this to computers as well) • In-Three • Indian Society of Cinematographers • International Pictures • Isco Optic • Israeli Cinematographers Association • Italian Society of Cinematographers • Iwerks 70 • Japanese Society of Cinematographers • Joe Dunton Camera • Kinarri 16 • Kinarri 35 • Korean Society of Cinematographers • film lighting • Matthews Studio Equipment • Mexican Society of Cinematographers • motion judder • negative cut list • Netherlands Society of Cinematographers • Norwegian Society of Cinematographers • Obie light • Onation Studios • Pathéscope • Photo-Sonics • Pick-up shot • Polish Society of Cinematographers • Prizmacolor • production buyer • Rex Motion Picture Company • Russian Guild of Cinematographers • Schneider Optics • scratch removal • scratch test (dab needed) • scrubbing • Slovenian Association of Cinematographers • Society of Cinematographers in Estonia • South African Society of Cinematographers • Sovcolor • Spanish Society of Cinematographers • Spirit Datacine • Static Club • SuperScope • SuperScope 235 • Swiss Cinematographers Society • Unity Isis • Unity MediaNetwork • universal capture • Viper FilmStream
Filmmaking article statistics

This list is generated automatically every night around 3 AM UTC.
view full worklist

Filmmaking pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 2
GA 18
B 81
C 458
Start 2,083
Stub 1,830
List 139
Category 15,059
Disambig 3
File 8
Project 2
Redirect 377
Template 181
NA 6
Assessed 20,247
Total 20,247
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 23,506 Ω = 5.26

Welcome to the assessment department of the Filmmaking WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's filmmaking 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 assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Filmmaking}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Filmmaking articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

FAQ

edit
See also the general assessment FAQ.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Filmmaking}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Filmmaking}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Filmmaking WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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.
8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
Peer review can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
9. 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.
10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
11. What if I have a question not listed here?
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Assessment instructions

edit

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

{{WikiProject Filmmaking|class=???}}

The following values may be used:

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

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. 35 mm film
  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 dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
  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. Color film (motion picture)
  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; 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. Technicolor
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. Cinematography
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. Wing
(as of June 2018)
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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Tracking shot
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. Eastman Color Negative
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 literary movements
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
List
{{WikiProject Filmmaking|class=List}} 		The article is primarily a list of information, but is more detailed than a Stub. Useful to get a comprehensive view of a topic, and as a reference. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. List of motion picture film stocks
NA
{{WikiProject Filmmaking|class=NA}} 		Not applicable? Articles that should not exist? Talk:Guerilla filmmaking
Template
{{WikiProject Filmmaking|class=Template}} 		Template:Film crew

Current Statistics

edit
Filmmaking pages by quality
Quality
Total
  FA 2
  GA 18
B 81
C 458
Start 2,083
Stub 1,830
List 139
Category 15,059
Disambig 3
File 8
Project 2
Redirect 377
Template 181
NA 6
Assessed 20,247
Total 20,247
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 23,506 Ω = 5.26


Log

edit

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

Requests for 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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review process instead.

Current requests

edit

WikiProject Filmmaking is already a part of Subtitle (captioning), and so is WikiProject Deaf, so I added {{WikiProject Filmmaking}} to Closed captioning. Now, Closed captioning needs assessment, however, these two articles really should be merged. Maybe WikiProject Filmmaking and WikiProject Deaf can work together to merge them. Taric25 08:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently rewritten the article on Elstree Studios and request that it be reassessed. Thanks. David m thomas 09:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sentences need to be consolidated into paragraphs. Also, can you provide any citations? Girolamo Savonarola 11:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved requests

edit

Promotion of Three-CCD to start-class

edit
  • I'd like to make an appeal to change the status of Three-CCD from stub-class (as assessed last October) to start-class, because it meets the following criteria (per the assessment rubric):
  1. it provides a moderate amount of information (more than I could find on, say, the Canon website)
  2. it has a particularly useful picture or graphic (photograph and diagram of a trichroic prism assembly)
  3. it has multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic (numerous in-text links to relevant Wikipedia articles and an external links section)
I've also been thinking about moving the article to Three-chip and generalizing the language to apply to all three-chip imaging assemblies and not just those that use CCDs, this shouldn't be very difficult.

-Fadookie Talk 23:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All seems reasonable IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola 02:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Avid Free DV to start-class

edit
  • I'd like to make a quick appeal to change the status of Avid Free DV from stub-class to start-class, because it meets the following criteria (per the assessment rubric):
  1. it provides a moderate amount of information
  2. it has a particularly useful picture or graphic (demonstrative screenshot in this case)
  3. it has multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic (three external links as of this writing)
I started this article and have been working on it for quite some time... to be honest I don't know if it can be expanded greatly. Feature comparisons with other DV editing programs and the rest of the Avid line would be nice, but I'm not sure if this article is the place for that kind of thing.

-Fadookie Talk 17:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the status, but what would make the Start class more apparent (IMHO) would be an External links section rather than text links, and maybe a few more paragraphs of information, preferably with at least one text section. In any case, I wish you good luck in your continued work on the article and hope to be able to continue upgrading its class over time! :) Girolamo Savonarola 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see some point that can be expanded: The article miss history and dates. When was first released? What features does this program provide (maybe some enumeration instead of "minimal features") ? Cate 09:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the critiques. I've made an external links section and added a paragraph about the limitations of the software as compared to other Avid programs, although there is clearly more that can be written on the subject of features.
I don't know the release history, and I'm not sure if Avid publishes this information; perhaps the internet archive can provide some insight.
-Fadookie Talk 23:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance assessment

edit

At the moment the department is not going to use the importance parameter for assessment. The reasoning is simply that almost all articles discuss specific topics which are mostly within the realm of one filmmaking production department - what an art director, cinematographer, director, producer, or visual effects supervisor would each consider top importance articles probably differs considerably.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Filmmaking/Assessment&oldid=707256378"