Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Film! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Film 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 Film}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Film articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

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 Film WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.

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

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

{{WikiProject Film|class=}}

Quality scale

Articles are automatically placed in an appropriate subcategory of Category:Film articles by quality by adding a label to the class parameter of the project banner:

• {{WikiProject Film|class=FA}} adds an article to Category:FA-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=FL}} adds an article to Category:FL-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=GA}} adds an article to Category:GA-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=B}} adds an article to Category:B-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=C}} adds an article to Category:C-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=Start}} adds an article to Category:Start-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=Stub}} adds an article to Category:Stub-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=List}} adds an article to Category:List-Class film articles

Other non-article pages may also be categorized in the same way:

• {{WikiProject Film|class=Disambig}} adds a page to Category:Disambig-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=Category}} adds a page to Category:Category-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=Template}} adds a page to Category:Template-Class film articles
• {{WikiProject Film|class=NA}} adds a page to Category:NA-Class film articles

If the class parameter is left empty, the article or page will be placed in Category:Unassessed film articles.

Core articles

In lieu of a moribund importance rating, the project has deprecated the importance parameter in favor of a targeted drive towards "core"-type articles as determined by consensus in external lists and polls rather than individual editorial whim. This work is concentrated at the Core department of this WikiProject.

Film grading scheme

]

WikiProject Film article progress 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 policies regarding content 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. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported 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. The use of citation templates is not required. Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. 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.	Fight Club (film) (as of September 2011)
GA	The article has attained good article status. More detailed criteria The article meets the good article criteria: A good article is— Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, 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, giving due weight to each. 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.	Scream (film) (as of July 2011)
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 five 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 either <ref> tags or citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required. 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.	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.	Fahrenheit 9/11 (as of September 2011)
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.	Saw V (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.	101 Dalmatians (1996 film) (as of September 2011)
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.	The Cure for Insomnia (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; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. 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.	List of accolades received by 127 Hours (as of July 2011)
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.	2011 in film (as of September 2011)

Requests for 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. (Note that this is not required; any editor may assess or re-assess an article on their own, if acting in good faith.)

If you assess an article, please strike it off so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Comments are not mandatory and any should be left at the article's talk page; the list below will be wiped periodically.

• Osthi - Rated stub class. I've added a production section to it and expanded the soundtrack section. The article is now all right for C-class or start level. Please re-assess and change it. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
• The Orphan Killer Currently has no rating and I'd like to get it checked. I've fleshed it out with as much reliable material as I could find at this time. I do think it'd pass C level, but I hesitate to mark it myself. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
• You Are the Apple of My Eye Overhauled the article and would like an outside opinion on its progress. If possible, please leave suggestions for improvement on its talk page. Thank you.--Lionratz (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Labyrinth (film) - I have significantly expanded this article, which is currently rated 'Start Class'. Due to my additions and re-working of the material formerly on the page, I feel the page could potentially be upgraded to 'B Class', but whatever happens I feel it should definitely no longer fall into the 'Start Class' category. Thank-you.Rachael89 (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters – I've made a number of additions to this article and think it should rate higher than "stub" now. Robert Kerber (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
• Valhalla (film) - article has had an extensive clean up and extension, re-assessment now needed. -- Cassianto (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
• The Grey - significantly expanded and cleaned up by myself and others so that I believe it no longer falls into the 'stub class' category. Please reassess. Thank you -- Abadguitarist (talk) 07:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
• Somewhere I Have Never Traveled :- ) DCS 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please list it for peer review instead.

Statistics

Current status

Overall project

Film pages by quality
Quality	Total pages
FA	82
FL	59
A	2
GA	424
B	436
C	2,149
Start	14,433
Stub	61,148
List	6,498
Book	43
Category	9,157
Disambig	282
Template	3,620
NA	637
Assessed	98,970
Unassessed	2,752
Total	101,722

Statistics by task force

American cinema task force  American cinema articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Low NA Other ??? Total FA 1 60 1 62 FL 36 36 A 1 1 GA 1 1 318 320 B 307 307 C 1 1,399 1,400 Start 5 7,696 1 7,702 Stub 4 22,777 1 22,782 List 1,964 1,964 Book 9 9 Category 2 1,317 1,319 Disambig 4 4 Template 427 427 NA 1 111 112 Other 3 3 Assessed 1 2 10 6 36,426 3 36,448 Unassessed 6 1 7 Total 1 2 10 6 36,432 4 36,455 Assessment log Worklist Argentine cinema task force  Argentine cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages GA 1 B 3 C 10 Start 96 Stub 1,283 List 76 Category 8 Template 10 Assessed 1,487 Unassessed 1 Total 1,488 Assessment log Worklist Australian cinema task force  Australian cinema articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 1 1 2 GA 10 4 14 B 1 8 2 11 C 1 1 2 1 38 11 54 Start 1 4 13 196 150 364 Stub 1 1 17 2 533 795 1,349 List 45 89 134 Category 19 19 Template 1 5 6 NA 2 2 Assessed 1 4 7 31 3 857 1,052 1,955 Unassessed 1 1 2 Total 1 4 7 31 3 858 1,053 1,957 Assessment log Worklist Baltic cinema task force  Baltic cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages C 3 Start 10 Stub 58 List 10 Category 1 Template 3 Assessed 85 Total 85 Assessment log Worklist British cinema task force  British cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 11 FL 8 A 1 GA 108 B 57 C 289 Start 1,460 Stub 4,786 List 366 Book 1 Category 415 Template 105 NA 10 Assessed 7,617 Total 7,617 Assessment log Worklist Canadian cinema task force  Canadian cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 1 GA 38 B 20 C 106 Start 577 Stub 1,603 List 165 Category 44 Template 7 NA 2 Assessed 2,563 Unassessed 2 Total 2,565 Assessment log Worklist Chinese cinema task force  Chinese cinema articles by quality and importance Quality Importance High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 3 3 GA 8 8 B 11 11 C 1 46 47 Start 1 7 10 344 362 Stub 2 21 1,280 2 1,305 List 127 127 Category 10 20 30 Disambig 1 1 Template 8 8 NA 1 1 Assessed 1 10 31 10 1,849 2 1,903 Unassessed 7 7 Total 1 10 31 10 1,856 2 1,910 Assessment log Worklist Christian films task force  Christian films pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 2 GA 2 B 8 C 12 Start 94 Stub 172 List 1 Category 1 Template 1 NA 1 Assessed 294 Total 294 Assessment log Worklist Comic book films task force  Comic book films pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 4 FL 1 A 1 GA 33 B 15 C 59 Start 290 Stub 182 List 21 Category 42 Disambig 2 Redirect 3 Template 9 Assessed 662 Total 662 Assessment log Worklist Film awards task force  Film awards pages by quality Quality Total pages FL 42 GA 4 B 3 C 6 Start 70 Stub 249 List 2,662 Category 267 Disambig 5 Template 489 NA 12 Assessed 3,809 Unassessed 5 Total 3,814 Assessment log Worklist Film festivals task force  Film festivals pages by quality Quality Total pages GA 2 B 1 C 4 Start 152 Stub 623 List 338 Category 10 Template 25 Assessed 1,155 Unassessed 1 Total 1,156 Assessment log Worklist Filmmaking task force  Filmmaking pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 7 GA 3 B 23 C 147 Start 696 Stub 1,204 List 49 Book 3 Category 4 Disambig 1 Template 10 Assessed 2,147 Unassessed 1 Total 2,148 Assessment log Worklist French cinema task force  French cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 3 GA 16 B 15 C 80 Start 530 Stub 2,487 List 242 Category 44 Template 43 NA 1 Assessed 3,461 Unassessed 2 Total 3,463 Assessment log Worklist

German cinema task force  German cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 1 FL 1 GA 17 B 17 C 65 Start 348 Stub 1,551 List 92 Category 57 Disambig 1 Template 17 NA 2 Assessed 2,169 Total 2,169 Assessment log Worklist Indian cinema task force  Indian cinema articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total FA 2 3 5 A 1 1 GA 1 4 3 6 19 33 B 1 17 5 2 1 49 75 C 1 12 15 15 24 98 165 Start 34 88 74 350 1,174 1,720 Stub 28 96 354 2,022 5,528 8,028 List 3 14 23 208 616 864 Category 210 9 219 Disambig 8 51 59 Redirect 3 3 Template 55 11 66 NA 2 3 5 Assessed 3 101 224 474 278 2,679 7,484 11,243 Unassessed 8 5 1,135 1,148 Total 3 101 224 482 278 2,684 8,619 12,391 Assessment log Worklist Italian cinema task force  Italian cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 3 FL 1 GA 12 B 8 C 47 Start 225 Stub 2,054 List 167 Category 31 Template 25 Assessed 2,573 Unassessed 2 Total 2,575 Assessment log Worklist Japanese cinema task force  Japanese cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 1 FL 1 GA 13 B 16 C 70 Start 622 Stub 1,953 List 126 Category 35 Disambig 2 Template 43 NA 3 Assessed 2,885 Total 2,885 Assessment log Worklist Korean cinema task force  Korean cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages GA 1 B 2 C 7 Start 101 Stub 743 List 74 Category 11 Template 11 Assessed 950 Unassessed 1 Total 951 Assessment log Worklist New Zealand cinema task force  New Zealand cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 1 GA 11 B 5 C 20 Start 61 Stub 121 List 6 Category 2 Template 2 Assessed 229 Total 229 Assessment log Worklist Nordic cinema task force  Nordic cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages GA 8 B 6 C 22 Start 228 Stub 1,276 List 71 Category 48 Disambig 1 Template 10 Assessed 1,670 Total 1,670 Assessment log Worklist Persian cinema task force  Persian cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages GA 1 B 1 Start 24 Stub 165 List 17 Category 2 Template 2 Assessed 212 Total 212 Assessment log Worklist Southeast Asian cinema task force  Southeast Asian cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages GA 8 B 6 C 23 Start 241 Stub 729 List 80 Category 60 Template 9 Assessed 1,156 Total 1,156 Assessment log Worklist Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force  Soviet and post-Soviet cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 1 GA 3 B 4 C 10 Start 150 Stub 756 List 117 Category 32 Template 8 NA 1 Assessed 1,082 Total 1,082 Assessment log Worklist Spanish cinema task force  Spanish cinema pages by quality Quality Total pages GA 6 B 3 C 26 Start 127 Stub 563 List 78 Category 10 Template 8 Assessed 821 Total 821 Assessment log Worklist War films task force  War films pages by quality Quality Total pages FA 5 FL 2 GA 16 B 43 C 150 Start 672 Stub 1,724 List 27 Category 7 Template 1 NA 1 Assessed 2,648 Total 2,648 Assessment log Worklist

Historical counts

Historical counts for the overall project. All figures are taken from the end of each quarter.

Quality	June 2006		September 2006		December 2006		March 2007		June 2007		September 2007
FA	18	0.17%	23	0.18%	34	0.2%	41	0.18%	51	0.18%	56	0.18%
FL	n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a
A	2	0.02%	5	0.04%	6	0.03%	5	0.02%	8	0.03%	12	0.04%
GA	8	0.08%	11	0.09%	28	0.16%	57	0.25%	61	0.22%	85	0.27%
B	72	0.68%	540	4.29%	860	4.95%	954	4.25%	967	3.5%	1006	3.22%
Start	54	0.51%	3455	27.42%	5611	32.29%	5852	26.09%	6021	21.8%	6164	19.71%
Stub	7	0.07%	6676	52.99%	10831	62.33%	15516	69.18%	20503	74.25%	22236	71.11%
List	n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a
Assessed	161	1.53%	10710	85.01%	17370	99.96%	22425	99.99%	27611	99.99%	29559	94.53%
Unassessed	10375	98.47%	1889	14.99%	7	0.04%	3	0.01%	2	0.01%	1712	5.47%
Total	10536		12599		17377		22428		27613		31271
Quality	December 2007		March 2008		June 2008		September 2008		December 2008		March 2009
FA	71	0.19%	80	0.2%	72	0.17%	72	0.16%	73	0.15%	77	0.14%
FL	n/a		n/a		12	0.03%	22	0.05%	24	0.05%	27	0.05%
A	28	0.08%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	1	0.002%	2	0.004%
GA	136	0.37%	154	0.38%	189	0.44%	217	0.47%	249	0.51%	274	0.5%
B	1221	3.32%	1312	3.26%	1339	3.11%	251	0.55%	259	0.53%	274	0.5%
Start	7093	19.28%	7557	18.76%	7871	18.26%	9247	20.12%	9540	19.52%	9866	18.04%
Stub	25212	68.53%	27607	68.52%	29811	69.15%	32182	70.01%	34515	70.62%	36811	67.32%
List	3015	8.19%	3580	8.88%	3804	8.82%	3979	8.66%	4106	8.4%	4465	8.17%
Assessed	36776	99.96%	40290	99.99%	43098	99.97%	45970	100%	48767	99.78%	51796	94.72%
Unassessed	16	0.04%	3	0.01%	11	0.03%	0	0%	108	0.22%	2885	5.28%
Total	36792		40293		43109		45970		48875		54681
Quality	June 2009		September 2009		December 2009		March 2010		June 2010		September 2010
FA	75	0.14%	76	0.12%	77	0.12%	78	0.12%	78	0.12%	80	0.11%
FL	33	0.06%	34	0.06%	34	0.05%	35	0.05%	40	0.06%	45	0.06%
A	3	0.005%	3	0.005%	2	0.003%	2	0.003%	2	0.003%	2	0.003%
GA	278	0.5%	277	0.45%	283	0.45%	296	0.46%	317	0.49%	324	0.43%
B	313	0.56%	331	0.54%	366	0.58%	407	0.63%	411	0.63%	410	0.54%
C	n/a		n/a		450	0.72%	1646	2.57%	1726	2.66%	1789	2.38%
Start	10023	18.05%	10349	16.89%	10290	16.41%	10288	16.04%	11161	17.23%	11642	15.46%
Stub	38342	69.04%	40956	66.82%	42782	68.23%	42215	68.95%	45610	70.42%	48311	64.14%
List	4315	7.77%	4418	7.21%	4861	7.75%	5159	8.05%	5296	8.18%	5410	7.18%
Book	n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		12	0.02%	25	0.03%
Category	n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		4760	6.32%
Disambig	n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		250	0.33%
Template	n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		1845	2.45%
NA	n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		n/a		33	0.04%
Assessed	53382	96.13%	56444	92.09%	59145	94.32%	62126	96.88%	64653	99.82%	74926	99.47%
Unassessed	2151	3.87%	4847	7.91%	3559	5.68%	2000	3.12%	114	0.18%	400	0.53%
Total	55533		61291		62704		64126		64767		75326
Quality	December 2010		March 2011		June 2011		September 2011		December 2011		March 2012
FA	81	0.1%	81	0.1%	81	0.09%	82	0.09%
FL	46	0.06%	46	0.06%	49	0.06%	57	0.06%
A	2	0.003%	2	0.002%	3	0.003%	2	0%
GA	337	0.43%	360	0.43%	372	0.43%	390	0.42%
B	423	0.54%	422	0.51%	429	0.49%	436	0.47%
C	1832	2.34%	1894	2.28%	1950	2.23%	2014	2.21%
Start	12004	15.35%	12545	15.12%	13036	14.91%	13644	14.74%
Stub	50211	64.2%	53569	64.57%	54723	62.6%	57919	62.58%
List	5418	6.93%	5537	6.67%	5918	6.77%	6090	6.58%
Book	36	0.05%	39	0.05%	40	0.05%	41	0.04%
Category	5286	6.76%	5463	6.59%	7461	8.54%	7914	8.55%
Disambig	247	0.32%	259	0.33%	266	0.3%	273	0.29%
Template	1927	2.46%	2683	3.23%	3014	3.45%	3217	3.48%
NA	18	0.02%	53	0.06%	62	0.07%	189	0.2%
Assessed	77868	99.57%	82953	100%	87404	99.99%	92295	99.72%
Unassessed	337	0.43%	4	0%	8	0.01%	256	0.28%
Total	78205		82957		87412		92551

Assessment log

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.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality log

Worklist

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/Film articles by quality 

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.