Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Auto PR[edit]

Does anyone else think it would be worthwhile to add in instructions on how to use the automatic peer reviewer?--Supernumerary 01:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you know how, right? Cbrown1023 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Natch!--Supernumerary 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

GA[edit]

Would anyone object to me marking what articles that we peer-reviewed that went on to achieve GA or FA status? It's already mentioned in the next newsletter, so people who click through would be wondering which made the cut.--Supernumerary 03:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. Cbrown1023 20:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Connection with WP:PR[edit]

The Peer review page has been changed. It now automatically lists peer reviews in the peer review category, but does not list other peer reviews. WikiProjects such as this have several ways to respond to this change.

  1. You can modify your template so that film PR requests are automatically added to the general PR category: this requires you to add redirects from the PR subpages to the film PR subpages. I've done this with three recent reviews.
  2. You can add by hand some film PR requests to the peer review category, by providing a redirect from the PR subpage to the film PR subpage. This requires fewer redirects.
  3. You can list film PR requests on the PR page in a separate section.
  4. You can have a separate section on the PR page devoted to film peer reviews.

I've implemented option 3. Option 4 sounds similar, but involves actually transcluding the peer reviews onto the PR page, not just the links. Please contact me if this is your preference, as it requires some additional work to set up. The other two options should be more straightforward, but let me know if you have any queries. Geometry guy 21:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we may need to evaluate peer reviews related to WikiProject Films to ensure a consistent connection. Girolamo, are you familiar with this structure? There appears to be some inconsistencies in how some of the peer reviews are presented, mainly differences in the titling and location (such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Mulholland Drive (film) vs. Wikipedia:Peer review/You Only Live Twice (film)/archive1, both live and recent PRs). —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I must admit that I never got wind of this, since I was offline for most of the month of December - I guess I didn't catch up to everything like I thought I did! But it is good to have this brought up, since I have been meaning to ask whether our PR is adequate in its current state. I've been doing redirects by hand, but I must admit that I feel that the WikiProject PR is currently inferior to the general PR process, due to our lack of bots, and the fact that our PRs never go on the general page, while the film-related ones on the general page are transcluded (by me by hand) onto our page. Maybe option 4 would be best? All comments on the matter would be welcome. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ratings policy changes?[edit]

Originally posted at User talk:Girolamo Savonarola

When did the community switch to ratings only being determined by the projects? You're knocking a lot of articles down tonight, and I'd like to see the conversation where that got changed. ThuranX (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the banner assessments ultimately are within the purview of the WikiProjects, not the encyclopedia at large; the projects help 1.0 by doing assessment work for them instead of 1.0 dictating the assessments. It is not uncommon for different projects to assess the same article differently, due to either opposing views on the quality of the article as a whole, insufficient coverage of the topic the project covers, or unique classes which may exist for particular projects. (For instance, WP Films has a Future-Class for all unreleased films, largely to distinguish these articles since it is impossible to adequately and comprehensively cover them prior to release.) So in short, there never was a switch.
As for what other projects do A-class review, a quick scan I just took of a small handful of projects shows that WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Biography, and WikiProject Military history all have virtually identical A-class review processes for articles wishing to be so assessed. These are all respected and substantive projects, and most importantly, they also cover very large scopes.
The purpose of the review is to provide a localized "expert" level review process for content vetting. This is distinct from FAC, which is commonly criticized for overlooking more subtle content issues while being overly attentive to article style and editing. Since many FAC editors simply do not have expert-level familiarity with many of the articles brought to nomination, we have created this project review so that editors more familiar with film-related topics will be able to assist in improving and correcting the content; A-class review generally is less interested in non-egregious style "faux pas" which we assume FAC will catch at a later stage.
Now, if editors don't want to go through another review process, they are certainly welcome to skip A-class review entirely, much as they may skip peer review and good article status as well. However, our goal is to offer a service for editors looking for further suggestions for how to improve their articles, specifically content ones.
Since A-Class for the Film template up until this point has been an individual assessment judgment, it was functionally no more or less "valid" or approved than B-Class has been; it stands, based on an individual judgment, until challenged or otherwise promoted. This process standardizes the class and tightens its inclusion, which both gives more value to the class as a whole, and also allows the project to more easily align it with the larger A-Class definition. It also makes more sense hierarchically, to raise the bar for assessment to higher-level classes, instead of creating an "island" between GA and FA which is not directly reviewable and may be placed without at least some prior consensus from uninvolved editors.
I'm sorry if an article you've been working on has been demoted, but please don't take it personally - it is a change in criteria, not our esteem of the article. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a big deal to me because of any article i've been working on, but it does seem to be fairly insulting to those who did work to get an article up to A class, only to have it summarily kicked down with the explanation, 'oh, there's a change in our WP, so your work's no good now'. Seems like you should instead be instituting it for new articles trying to reach A, then reviewing old articles to either drop them or post a list of what's needed. ThuranX (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThuranX (talkcontribs)
This is an understandable criticism, and one which I had considered previously. However, I don't think it's fair to characterize my explanation as "so your work's no good now" - I merely left a brief note to see the Review dept page if they had questions, although I can understand someone making such a misunderstanding. Our template is also a bit smarter than I remembered (the A-class parameter has been there in inactivated form for a long time now), and actually already had auto-cat'd them to Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles. Since I've started to regularly maintain that category, I guess I wanted to clean it sooner rather than later! However, to be truthful, I also hope that the reassessments might raise enough pride to get some of the editors motivated enough to enlist the articles in GA, A, or FA candidacy! :) (I don't know if you've ever tried encouraging editors of GA and A-class articles to push to FAC, but in my experience, it's hard! If we get so much as one new FA in the next month bc of this, it will be worth it by far...)
Were this all concerning a great number of articles, I probably would've done it like FAR was run when refs became mandatory, and given a grace period. However, since there were only 27 A's, and at least half of them were old ones I had assessed for WP Filmmaking a long time ago when the FA criteria (and hence A criteria) were somewhat laxer; I had been planning to demote those for sometime anyway. I'm guessing that less than 10 of these articles are actively maintained, so I did anticipate that there might be a small but significant amount of concern. I apologize if things seemed a bit hasty. It is something I do occasionally falter on, and if you have any suggestions for future improvement, I would be happy to hear them. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review?[edit]

If an article passes WP GA, do I change this project's rating to GA on the article's talk page? ~SunDragon34 (talk) 05:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. :) The instructions at WP:GAN are pretty clear about this. Also, if a film article becomes a Good Article, it can be added to WikiProject Films's Spotlight. —Erik (talkcontrib) 13:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A-class review: active?[edit]

Is there a point in nominating articles for A-class review here, or is that process dormant? I ask due to the large numbers of failures for lack of response in 2009. Regards,  Skomorokh  06:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A-Class has been deprecated by the project, hence is being removed from this page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift response, Collectonian. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  15:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Help with Peer Review needed: Jayne Mansfield[edit]

Peers needed to peer review the article (here) on this peerless actor

A mid-importance article supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers that was reviewed by Version 1.0 Editorial Team and selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions. The article has come a long way from a fan boy mish mash to a fair enough GA. Now is the time to take it to the next level. Currently it's going through another peer review. Please, lend a hand. Aditya(talkcontribs) 10:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)