Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment

MainAssessmentShowcaseHelpTemplatesDescendant WikiProjects and task forcesPortalDeletion sorting

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).

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.

Instructions

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Television}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject Television|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class television articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class television articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class television articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class television articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class television articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class television articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class television articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class television articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class television articles)		List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class television articles)		Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class television articles)		Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class television articles)		Draft
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class television articles)		FM
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class television articles)		File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class television articles)		Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class television articles)		Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class television articles)		Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class television articles)		Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class television articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed television articles)		???

For a non-article, such as a Category, File, 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.

Quality scale

WikiProject article 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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and 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. 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. 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.	House (TV series)
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: 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) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) 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. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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 Black Mirror episodes
FM	Pictures that have attained featured picture status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. More detailed criteria A featured picture: Is of a high technical standard. It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance. It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here. Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements. Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed. Is of high resolution. It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height (1500×1500px); larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred. Further information on image size can be found here. Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration. Note that vector graphics in SVG format omit any requirement for any pixel count. Animations and video may be somewhat smaller. Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative. A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide. commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:File copyright tags. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. The image is used in one or more articles. It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image. A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English. A complete file description: Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable. Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other medium. Geotagging photographs of identifiable places is encouraged. This entails providing the coordinates of where the camera was when the medium was recorded to an appropriate degree of precision no less than ~10 km² (see Commons:Geocoding, or Template:Coord if the image is hosted on the English Wikipedia). States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc). It is suggested that additional relevant information that becomes known during the course of the nomination be subsequently included in the file description. May include languages other than English but there must be an English version available that meets this criterion. The file name may be in a language other than English. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive. Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text. Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable. Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.	The page contains a featured image, sound clip or other media-related content.	Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited.	File:Big&Small edit 1.jpg
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.	Grey's Anatomy
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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial 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 media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 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.	DuMont Television Network
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 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. 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. 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. 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.	Buffy the Vampire Slayer (TV series)
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.	Blackadder
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.	Television channel
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.	Television special
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 Prison Break episodes
Category	Any category falls under this class.	Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area.	Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized.	Category:Television
Disambig	Any disambiguation page falls under this class.	The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title.	Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title.	TV (disambiguation)
File	Any page in the file namespace falls under this class.	The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content.	Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited.	File:TV-icon-2.svg
Portal	Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class.	Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics.	Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date.	Portal:Television
Project	All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class.	Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development.	Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project.	Wikipedia:WikiProject Television
Redirect	Any redirect falls under this class.	The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location.	Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles.	A World of Music (TV Series)
Template	Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes.	Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles.	Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.	Template:Infobox television
NA	Any non-article page that fits no other classification.	The page contains no article content.	Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified.	N/A

Importance assessment

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

{{WikiProject Television|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance television articles)		Top
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance television articles)		High
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance television articles)		Mid
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance television articles)		Low
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance television articles)		NA
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance television articles)		???

Importance scale

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.

Article importance grading scheme

WikiProject article importance scheme

Importance	Criteria	Example
Top	Subject is extremely important, even crucial, to its specific field. Reserved for subjects that have achieved international notability within their field.	Television
High	Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent.	Batman (TV series)
Mid	Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.	Television Centre, London
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within its field of study. It may only be included to cover a specific part of a notable article.	Dollhouse (TV series)
NA	Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc.	Template:WikiProject Television
???	Subject importance has not yet been assessed.	N/A

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 2022 list and sign with four tildes (~~~~). An archive of past requests can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment/Request archive.

2020

2020 answered assessments

The Circle (American TV series) – This season just finished a few days ago. I worked really hard on this article and it is definitely not start class anymore. I feel kinda biased on rating article I heavily create, so I would prefer for it to be rated by someone else. Thanks! Jayab314 01:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC) @Jayab314: After a couple of edits, I think the article now meets the B-class criteria. I've also lowered its WPTV importance from high to mid, because this is currently a one-season foreign edition of a show and I'm not seeing (e.g.) unprecedented high rating figures or critical acclaim. Thanks for your work! — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC) @Bilorv: Thanks for the reassessment to B-Class! Just one question: do you think there is any potential for this article to become a GA article? Jayab314 18:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC) @Jayab314: there's potential, definitely. Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections is a very good essay to read on how to link reviews together by content, rather than just having a block of text for each review. There's some information in the article's lead which isn't mentioned anywhere in the body, and probably that content belongs only in the body. I imagine the show will be nominated for awards in the next year, which will need to be mentioned once they occur. Other than that, I can't see any obvious areas to address, though a GA reviewer would probably find some more points for improvement. — Bilorv (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC) The Untamed (TV series) - This series has been constantly updated by many contributors ever since the release. It was rated stub-class and low-importance when this page was first created, so I would like to request a reassessment. Thank you! --ZoeZoeZoey (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC) @ZoeZoeZoey: I've re-rated it as C-class. There is a lot of detail which might require a split, particularly in the cast section (maybe List of The Untamed characters is appropriate) and the soundtrack (The Untamed (soundtrack)). There's also some detail which might be excessive (under "Promotion"). The article contains all the major aspects of the series. I've also re-rated it as high importance due to the large number of awards, reviews, audience views and high profit of the series. — Bilorv (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC) Draft:Mission of the Shark: The Saga of the U.S.S. Indianapolis – This article got sent to draft space for being improperly sourced. Whenever i come across a TV movie I've seen that doesn't have a page I create one, but don't want to if they get deleted. Is IMDB no longer a good source [or I guess was it ever?] Should I just add more sources to this like Allmovie and/or Rotten Tomatoes? Iwalters (talk) Hi Iwalters and thanks for the question! Take a look at WP:RSP, which has a pretty good list of websites and whether they are or are not a reliable source. IMDb is not good because its content is mostly user-generated, whereas Rotten Tomatoes' critics scores are good and Allmovie is reliable for its professional reviews. But to demonstrate notability, you need a bit more than reliable sources: you need secondary sources that discuss the movie in significant detail. Usually with television, the way to do this is by referencing three or four professional reviews of the piece of media, or non-routine coverage of the media's production or filming. Big award nominations could also show notability—picking one of the articles you created, After the Shock looks good because it was nominated for an Emmy (though it should have an inline citation to the Emmy's website or another page to verify the nomination). I'm afraid not all television movies meet these criteria, and in such cases we can't have an article on those movies. (I know some of this may not accord with your experience on Wikipedia, but the site is so large that it's hard to enforce our rules consistently; if you see, say, an IMDb source on another article then you could replace it with a better one, or remove it.) — Bilorv (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Love Is Blind (TV series) – This show just finished on Thursday and is definitely not start class anymore. I'm thinking it's C, but I always want a second opinion, especially on articles I create a large majority of. Feedback would be great on making it better, too. Thanks. Jayab314 01:28, 1 March 2020 (UTC) Well I've made one edit to the article but I think I'm fine to re-rate it. It's B-class, I reckon. I've got a lot of small thoughts so I've posted them on the article's talk page. — Bilorv (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series, season 10) – The season finished last week, and has not been assessed since before the season began.TheTVExpert (talk) 19:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC) C-class by my estimation, close to B-class but narrowly failing criterion #2 in the omission of critical reviews and #2/#4 in the varying lengths/styles of the episode summaries. — Bilorv (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Riverdale (season 1) – Bit of an older season, but we're slowly expanding the Riverdale seasons into their own pages on the mainspace. Not sure what to assess it as. QueerFilmNerdtalk 09:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC) I notice Lee Vilenski has re-rated it B-class and I agree with that assessment. No sections missing, good referencing and well-written. — Bilorv (talk) 12:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC) Lenkov-verse – Relatively new article, that has yet to be assessed. Would like to have it assessed so I can know what needs be improved. TheTVExpert (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC) @TheTVExpert: An interesting case, hard to assess what should be in a franchise article. I've gone with C-class and I think it meets B-class criteria #1,3,4,5, but the lead doesn't identify the scope to a person with no knowledge of the subject (#6). Imagine someone not at all familiar with American television: what are the shows about? They're police procedurals/actions/dramas about police, military, detectives etc.—explain the genres and maybe give a sentence about each show individually. We're also missing a lot of real-world context about how the shows were made (#2): they were all created by the same person, right? Did ideas for one show ever get used for another, or was one show a spin-off of an idea conceived for another? Did the writing teams overlap? Did the shows ever use the same sets or share anything else production-related? (Even if there's no overlap at all, some production details are needed.) Not all of these questions need to be answered for B-class (maybe some of them aren't answered in reliable sources), but some of them do. — Bilorv (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC) @Bilorv: I've expanded the lead and added some production information. TheTVExpert (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC) @TheTVExpert: lead looking good, made a small edit here. With criterion #2, I think there's still a lot more that could be done in writing about the histories of the shows and in particular any ways in which their development overlapped or had similarities. The sentences about filming should have inline citations (fine to copy them from the main series' articles if they're there). — Bilorv (Black Lives Matter) 20:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC) Roger Rees – The article looks to be well-edited and fully cited, and seems like it should be classed higher. His work has been well-covered in sources (esp. after his death) and may rank higher in importance. Not sure what to do about projects like WPTheatre, which seems inactive. (I haven't really participated in projects much.) —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 18:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC) @AlanM1: thanks for the request. With all due respect, I've actually downgraded the article to low importance for this WikiProject—it seems Rees is better known for stage work, and we usually have "mid" importance or higher only for articles about internationally-famous television shows or worldwide household names most closely associated with television. I think the article is still C-class at the moment, too, though it's close to B-class. My only criticism is with criterion #2, as the article could be a bit more detailed. The "Career" section of the prose is not hugely more than a prose repetition of "Work", and it can be improved by including much more detail about the more important projects of Rees. Take featured article Michelle Williams (actress) as a perfect example. Some questions to answer: what was Rees' motivation in different parts of his career? Did he have different genres he moved through? Which roles marked new experiences for him? What inspired the beginning of a television career? How did critics receive each role, and which projects were most successful? When did he gain fame—slowly over time, or for one performance? Were there particular roles which became iconic? How is he now best-remembered? These questions are all addressed a little bit in the section, but could be turned into the focus of it. Of course, any answers need to be reliably sourced and neutrality written, and it may be that some questions aren't discussed much in the literature, so it's okay to pick and choose the ones answered best by secondary sources. Addressing this advice a little bit would take it over the edge to B-class, and really internalising it would improve the quality much further. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC) @Bilorv: Thanks for the detailed review. While I didn't see him on stage, his work on television, especially The West Wing, was quite memorable (enough that it was mentioned conspicuously in much of the post-mortem coverage), so I would disagree with the downgrade in importance on that basis (i.e., what sources said). Perhaps someone familiar with the field and his stage work will improve the areas you outlined. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC) @AlanM1: It's no comment on Rees personally, but it's quite rare for any individual person to be mid-importance in the whole industry of television. I've added the comments to the talk page as a maybe more obvious place for anyone who can help improve the article. — Bilorv (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC) NCIS (TV series), NCIS: Los Angeles, and NCIS: New Orleans – Have not been assessed in years. TheTVExpert (talk) 19:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC) @TheTVExpert: I've just assessed these. NCIS: still C class. Los Angeles: demoted to C class - too much unsourced information and poorly weighted prose vs. lists and tables. New Orleans: updated to B class - latest casting needs a source but otherwise good, much better weighting, and even coverage (though could use some more depth) Kingsif (talk) 00:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC) @Kingsif: I added sources for the casting on New Orleans. I'll see about working other the other two soon. TheTVExpert (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC) MacGyver (2016 TV series) – Also has not been assessed in years. TheTVExpert (talk) 12:38, 23 May 2020 (UTC) @TheTVExpert: I've gone with C-class, but it's close to B-class. Some pointers: "Notable guests" is probably too much detail for the main page – can be removed; more production details, particularly of writing and filming, would be good; the lead should be a summary of the body of the article with weight given in proportion to the length of each section. — Bilorv (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Aloha (Hawaii Five-0) – Has been improved since the last assessment. TheTVExpert (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC) @TheTVExpert: still C-class by the skin of its teeth, in my opinion. More critical reviews are needed, and search for more secondary sources or interviews—if any exist, they would greatly improve the article. The twitter/instagram content in Production needs improved sourcing. The plot synopsis should be multiple paragraphs and Continuity should be a separate section (which I would recommend renaming "Analysis"). The tiny subsections in Production should be expanded if possible, or reorganised to use fewer subsections. "Part 1" shouldn't be a section (just mention the first part in a different part of the body) and the lead should be expanded. No comment on whether the infobox image has an appropriate rationale. — Bilorv (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC) The Den (TV programme) - Has not been accessed on the importance scale. Danny157 (talk) 10:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the request, Danny157. It had |priority=high in its banner, presumably meant to be a high importance rating, but I've reassessed it as mid-importance—a significant cluster of children's entertainment spanning a generation, but with limited international scope. — Bilorv (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Bluestone 42 - Has not been assessed in years and improved since it was. Terasail (talk) 13:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC) @Terasail: definitely way better than a stub, re-rated as C-class. Thanks for the request! To get to B-class, it needs a Production section (incorporating the sentences at the top of Series 2 and 3 under Episodes, and then expanding with any interviews or production information). More critical reviews are needed. I think we use "—" or some similar placeholder rather than "Fewer than ..." for ratings. — Bilorv (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC) Long Vacation - Doing some improvements. Ominae (talk) 02:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC) @Ominae: still start-class, in my opinion. There has been improvement but many major parts of the topic are missing, such as more detailed production information (who were the main writers? what inspired them to make the show? what did the cast say about the series? etc.) or reviews of the episodes in national newspapers or other sources. The writing style could be improved and the plot summary could be made a better overview of the series as a whole. Please feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any follow-up questions or want to discuss this further. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 09:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Philippine game show) – I did major revisions on the structure of the article. I've also added sources and fixed the existing ones. HiwilmsTalk 14:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Hi Hiwilms, these are substantial improvements on a lengthy article, so thank you for your work. I believe the article is now C-class. It is close to B-class in style throughout (after some prose improvements I've made) but it is missing one major section: critical reception. How did critics react to the show initially? How about each game change or the revival and new host? Reviews in national newspapers (or other reliable secondary sources) are needed to show what professional critics thought of each aspect of the show, including the gameplay mechanics, question styles and difficulties, host likeability and graphics if possible. Such sources can be in any language. — Bilorv (talk) 09:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC) @Bilorv: Thanks for the reassessment and great edits. That's actually my next goal but I'm having trouble finding sources because the Internet was not that developed in the Philippines back in 2000. Even when the show was relaunched in 2009, there were still a lot of major news outlets without a properly functioning website. If they had one at that time, most articles are already inaccessible after changing the structure of their website. Nevertheless, I'll still try to find them until the end of this week. HiwilmsTalk 11:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC) @Hiwilms: absolutely, I know it's easier said than done. It can be much harder to get some articles to particular classes than others. Useful for older websites (if they had reasonably high traffic) is the Wayback Machine, in case you haven't already come across it. I think The Wikipedia Library now has a lot more resources you can access without explicitly requesting, though I'm not sure whether there's much in the way of Philippine sources. — Bilorv (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC) Masked Singer Pilipinas – This is an upcoming new show in the Philippines based on the franchise of the same name. I've just created it recently. HiwilmsTalk 14:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC) @Hiwilms: Upgraded to start class. Enough content, that's sourced, to make it not a stub. But still not much detail. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC) @Kingsif: Thanks! The show will start two weeks from now and that's probably when we'll get more content for the article. HiwilmsTalk 09:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC) Children of the Gods - rewrote this badboy. Give it to me! (Mehehehea (talk) 15:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)) @Mehehehea: Upgraded to B class, great work, but I think the plot section is a bit long and the background section doesn't seem standard. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC) Jurassic World Camp Cretaceous is ready for a reassessment. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Some Dude From North Carolina: B-class is my rating, a big jump up so great work. The only thing that leaps out at me is the two blockquotes, in "Premise" and "Reception". The most important part of MOS:QUOTE by far is the sentence: While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. For "Premise", if the section is needed then it should outline the premise in our own words, rather than quoting from Netflix. For "Reception", it's a lot harder to get things right but the blockquote is simply too much text to quote—we only need to identify, as concisely as possible, the major opinions that Lloyd gave in his review. See Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections for some very useful but hard-to-master techniques on how to quote as little as possible in Reception sections. Other than that, I would say further expansion of "Production" and "Marketing", and any updates as the show progress, are the next steps. Good stuff! — Bilorv (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC) It's Okay to Not Be Okay - Tried to improve the article and I think it should be rated more than Start Class. I will also expect someone to point out all the possible shortcomings of the article so it can be improved further. Thank you. -ink&fables «talk» 20:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC) -ink&fables: thanks for the nomination on an interesting topic. I think it's C-class now, but close to B-class. The writing is good enough to understand, but not quite of the high quality we need for B-class. I've done a bit of rewriting to help address this issue, but it may be possible to nominate this at the Guild of Copy Editors, with a note about prose style being the major barrier to B-class. The other issue relates to the amount of character description: less is more when it comes to plot detail, so information about supporting characters should be shortened to a single sentence if possible, or a couple of sentences at most. Minor characters do not need to be mentioned. Thanks for your hard work on this! — Bilorv (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC) We Bare Bears – I'm hoping to get this article up to B-class. I'm not sure it's there yet, but I'd like some feedback on what would need to be added to get it to that standard. HenryCrun15 (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC) Thanks for the request, HenryCrun15. I believe it is still C-class and is lacking a bit on the first two B-class criteria. Everything that is there is very good, except that not all of the Broadcast content is cited, and the lead doesn't it make it clear to me that this is a kids' show (not everyone is familiar with Cartoon Network). I think the main criticism I have is: more! I want to see interviews with as many writers, voice actors and crew as possible in Production. I'd like quite a lot more critical reception sources, but relatively concise summaries which only highlight the key aspects of the review. For instance, the A.V. Club source gets too much length. "In other media" doesn't tell me how many books were published and under what titles and in what years. The movie is mentioned in this section and the one below, a redundancy, but there is not enough info about the movie (that the usual writers/actors worked on it, one-sentence plot summary, a handful of words about the themes, critical reception). I understand that the amount of sources that exist vary from show to show (and can be low even for a very widely-known show in the case of kids' television), but look for what you can. Not all of these would be necessary for B-class, but some of them are—I think the article could be made a fair bit longer and more detailed. Thanks for the work so far! — Bilorv (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Thank you Bilorv, this is a fantastic template on how I can work on this article to improve it. I'll take this advice and work on the article from your guidance. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this. HenryCrun15 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC) Music television: Hello, I have worked on this page for an encyclopedic writing class and I think at this point it qualifies as more than a stub. have a look and let me know if I should change anything. Thank youSydStudent (talk) 07:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC) Hi SydStudent, it looks like Music television is the article you've been working on so I've fixed the link (article titles are case-sensitive). On that note, I've added a hatnote from MTV (where the uppercase redirects to) in case anyone arrives via that link looking for Music television. I see the article has improved from this to this with your help, which is excellent. I think the content is weakest in its formatting / use of wikitext, which is more than understandable for a new contributor, but I've made some illustrative changes in the earlier sections which could be applied throughout the article. See this diff and let me know if you have questions about the changes. I think the main limitation of the content is in its scope—it's basically just about America (after a lead which mentions quite a few music TV channels of other countries)—but of course "summarise all music television globally" would have been a much more daunting task when the article had so little content initially. There are places where the prose is slightly weaker than we would like or where it feels more like a college essay than a Wikipedia article (again, makes sense given the context). For instance, rather than The impact that television music has had on music culture is that ... I would write Coates argued that the impact ..., because Wikipedia articles are not about putting forwards convincing arguments (like an essay) but summarising significant scholarly opinions (see WP:OR). Overall, it's a jump from stub-class to C-class, which is really big for a high-importance article like this one. The references added are very useful. Hope this feedback is helpful, thanks for your contributions, and any questions are welcome on my talk page, particularly about the miniutiae of Wikipedia formatting or style! — Bilorv (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Television documentary: Hello Wikipedia Editors, I have worked on this article for an encyclopaedic writing course at the University of Sydney. I believe at this point the article qualifies beyond a stub. Please could you have a read of the recent changes and advise of any subsequent requirements for further upgrade (if needed). Thank you, (DigiWikiWriter14, (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2020 Hi DigiWikiWriter14 and thanks for the request! I've got some overlapping comments to my assessment of the article your colleague above worked on but I'll spell them all out. I see the article has gone from this to this, which is definitely something to be proud of. The formatting and writing style is very much inline with Wikipedia style, but this edit of mine nitpicks some smaller details (the main thing is that references with the same content can be defined once and referred by name elsewhere). I'd say the main issue is the restricted scope of (mostly) Britain and America, but again this is a really good starting point to work from. The sourcing is high-quality; scholarly articles and texts are probably best for this topic, but the use of (e.g.) The Guardian, CNN, Variety where they appear is appropriate. I'd pick up on a couple of unreliable sources which should be replaced or removed—the Daily Express and the Forbes contributor piece; both are listed at WP:RSP (where it's important to distinguish Forbes' editorial pieces from contributor articles). Similar to your colleague above, this is a leap up from stub-class to C-class, which is fantastic to see on a high-importance articles that's getting a fair few pageviews per day. I definitely learned something from reading it. Let me know if you have any questions—you can contact me on my talk page for any questions, big or small. — Bilorv (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

2021

2021 answered assessments

SLAPP Suits: I worked really hard on the article, and I think it meets the requirements of a B-class article. If it doesn't, I'd like to know what to improve next– thanks in advance! Theleekycauldron (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2021 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: B-class indeed. I think it's good enough for B-class but I would like a much stronger fair use rationale for the infobox image, if one is to be used ("Header for article" doesn't convince me of WP:NFCCP#8—what's the encyclopedic/informational content of the image?). Otherwise the article is looking good, maybe a bit more content in Reception, a bit more conciseness in "Background" (a detailed synopsis of "Coal" would belong on a separate article about the segment if it is notable) and tidying up (notice The Mary Sue etc. should have italics, Template:Last Week Tonight can be included at the bottom) would take it further. — Bilorv (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Donna Moss: It's me again! I rewrote Donna Moss and honestly, I'm not sure where to put it. I could see it still being Start-class but honestly, i'm not sure where else to take this. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:29, 7 March 2021 (UTC) @Theleekycauldron: great work and C-class is my assessment. For B-class I'd just want more length and more references. Character articles can be hard because it's often not easy to find sources about the character out of the wave of show-related sources they're mentioned in. I'd expect these books (and maybe more) to have some good content though I know they could be inaccessible to you (try Google Books). Otherwise, interviews with Janel Moloney or the writers might be out there and you might find more articles like the Washington Post column which focus on the character specifically. The ProQuest feature of The Wikipedia Library is also a good place to search (I think you should have access). It's your choice whether you want to put in the hard work of digging deeper to see what's there, or want to bank your improvements (after which the article is looking much better) and move onto a topic where it's easier to make progress. — Bilorv (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv: Thanks! I'm going to leave it as C-Class for now and work on improving other parts of The West Wing universe on Wikipedia– it's a lot of original research and character bios and I think a few of them could be much better. E-books are really hard for me– something about the internet corrupting my attention span. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Behind Her Eyes (TV series): Most popular unassessed page this month in WP:TV. Needs quality and importance assessment. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC) @Sammi Brie: I assessed it as Start-class, and low importance. Doesn't seem quite ready for C-Class, yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC) The Blip - assessment against B/C class criteria following considerable expansion by BD2412. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IronManCap (talk • contribs) 21:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks to BD2412 for the hard work and IronManCap for the nomination. I'll be harsh and give this C-class: needs a free image or two (e.g. of related writers or actors); has a couple of unsourced sentences (possibly WP:OR) at the end of "Differences from the comics"; could do with some real-world background about the conception/design/writing; first paragraph in "Reception" is unsourced and would be best replaced by some quotes of critics analysing The Blip as a plot device. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Christine Nelson - This article was deleted in 2016 for having no sources to establish notability. Unlike the original article, which was essentially a Fandom copypaste, I've rewritten the whole thing from scratch with multiple sources establishing development of the character, notability and impact. ToQ100gou (talk) 01:13, 31 March 2021 (UTC) Thanks for that work, ToQ100gou, I really like the behind-the-scenes information, the mention of awards and the sentences about critical reception. They all go to addressing the 2016 concerns. I've rated it C-class: I think there's a bit too long of a Degrassi Junior High summary; I want to know how many episodes the character appears in for each installment (or maybe a table of what seasons of which shows they appeared in); and there might be more real-world context to be had, like specific critics' feedback on some storylines Spike was central to (I know these can be hard to find in pre-internet days, though you might find something useful in the version of ProQuest I think you should have access to in The Wikipedia Library). It is pushing B-class, though, so brilliant work! (As a technical note, <s>Text here</s> is used to produce a strikethrough and I add it when I've done the review, so you don't want to put it there when adding a request. Also, in articles we don't use any spaces before references, so you might want to remove the spaces you have between the period and the citation.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv: - Thanks for the response and the rating! I believe the improvements you're suggesting are easily done. And thanks for the tip about the Library; searching "degrassi spike" on ProQuest yields me 1000+ results, so I believe there might be some good material to work with. There is also articles on her actress being a spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood in Alberta circa 1993, which may or may not be relevant to the character article. I can shorten the DJH section by trimming some cruft as well. Anyway, thanks for the response (and sorry for the strikethrough mistake) ToQ100gou (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv: - Thanks to ProQuest I've been able to add some more information that concerns the development of the character as well as opinions about the character's storylines and immediate impact. I am still trying to look for any sources about the reception of the character itself during the Next Generation era, but would you mind reassessing it if it's allowed here? Thank you. ToQ100gou (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Sorry I missed this one, ToQ100gou (will look at the other request later). "In popular culture" needs better sourcing (we should be very strict about these sections—most things people write under that section name are not notworthy enough). I think the image of Amanda Stepto under "Reception and impact" fails WP:NFCCP#1—we say that images are replaceable if it's a living person (someone could email her agent, bump into her on the street and ask to take a photo which they release under a free license etc.), and two images of the character are already used under fair use. IMDb is not reliable so you need to try to dig up some archive of Young Artist Awards or newspaper report released at the time (but I know how frustrating this is as I've done it a lot with old awards—sometimes you can't get a reference and just have to drop mention of the award completely). International Emmy is also not cited or mentioned in the body. Minor changes: put Degrassi show names in the section headers in italics, and no spaces before references under "Reception and impact". Overall these are steps in the right direction but I don't think it's B-class just yet (on grounds of criterion #1 and #2). — Bilorv (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the reassessment. ProQuest actually has several sources of newspaper reports about the International Emmy, which I didn't think of citing for some reason...sorry! The Young Artist Award I haven't taken into account but will look for. I can remove the "In popular culture" section for now. And yeah, the photo of Amanda Stepto in the "Reception & impact" section was meant to demonstrate that what the actress looked like outside of the show but during the time period of the show; her being interviewed on the radio show tying into the fact that she was asked constantly for advice like a counsellor. Unfortunately it's hard to come across free photos of the actors when it comes to a show of Degrassi Junior High 's type. I have actually emailed the University of Toronto media archives, who keep a fonds of DJH, about whether a bunch of photographs within the fonds can be licensed for use on Wikipedia (which while probably fruitless and naive is worth a shot). I'll check the criterion more closely and edit the article as best as I can to match. Again, thanks for the reassessment. ToQ100gou (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC) No problem. Free images can be hard to source—I've had a couple of successes and more failures—but the mere fact that a free image could be obtained some arbitrary time point in the future (even if you have no way of doing so in the near future) means NFCCP#1 is not met so the image will have to be removed. — Bilorv (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Meet the Khans: Big in Bolton - New article about a new British reality TV series. IronManCap (talk) 17:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC) @IronManCap: Start-class, by my estimation. Tabloids like the Daily Mirror are not generally reliable sources (particularly for controversial content about living people, which is, well, most of what tabloids write about). Something like inews is better, and more reviews like this would be good for showing notability. These BBC and Irish News sources would be good to expand the article with (though interviews do not generally count for notability). As for the plot summaries, you must not copy content from another source. This is copyright violation, even if you attribute the source. You can only copy Creative Commons, Public Domain or other freely licensed content (attribution necessary for some of these). Read Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more, but I would always advise against copying content directly. I have never once, to my memory, needed to do it. For reviews or interviews we can quote small fragments of a source, with quote marks and inline citation attribution, but otherwise rewriting in your own words is needed. I'm drawing this point out because I see these misconceptions a lot all over TV articles. If you copied the plot summaries because you saw someone else do it elsewhere then remove those summaries with the edit summary [[WP:COPYVIO|copyvio]] or similar. We need to get the message across that this copying is not allowed on Wikipedia, and in fact breaks the law in almost all countries. — Bilorv (talk) 20:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv: Thanks for the review, I would agree with the rating. I saw a copied summary on another article and assumed it was ok without checking WP policy, so I will see to that. Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 11:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC) @IronManCap: no worries, as long as you now understand the issue. :) — Bilorv (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC) It's Late (Degrassi Junior High episode) - Another Degrassi article. I'm having trouble finding present-day reviews of the episode that aren't self-published blogs, but I was able to find a contemporary review and some news articles about how the episode and the storyline came to be on ProQuest. Like the Christine Nelson one, this whole article was written from scratch (Except for some pieces taken from that article). ToQ100gou (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I'll give this B-Class, ToQ100gou. Per MOS:TVPLOT, plot summaries in episode articles should be 400 words or under (currently around 500, so a good level to start trimming to the limit from). Try not to copy exact text from ProQuest but paste in the relevant parts in a {{cite news}} (or similar) template or at least rewrite for similar formatting to other Wikipedia referencing styles. Even one non-free image for an episode article traditionally needs at least two to three sentences of analysis/behind-the-scenes info about that scene (or something very specific depicted in the image i.e. not just characters) to survive potential deletion discussions, so I wouldn't expect either of these images to survive a discussion. Those are just the flaws, and the successes are that all major aspects of the topic are covered in reasonable detail, with a good writing and referencing style. Particularly refreshing and rare to see for a pre-internet television topic. — Bilorv (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Thanks (the third time!) for the assessment. I'm glad that you feel that way about how refreshing it is...The articles regarding Degrassi Junior High and Degrassi High I believe deserve coverage equal to their successors, which happened to air as the internet took off, and there are a plethora of sources on ProQuest that establish that, so I appreciate the appreciation, if you will. On another note regarding the images, the assistant media archivist of the University of Toronto got back to me, and referred me to WildBrain, the copyright holder of the series, to request permission to use some publicity photos instead of non-free TV screenshots for use in these articles, but because of current restrictions in Toronto, if there is permission, the archivist needs to wait to return to her office in order to digitize them. ToQ100gou (talk) 02:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Johnny Carson - Even though I have not made significant edits to this article, I find it odd to see it listed only as High importance, especially when compared with other subjects deemed as "Top" importance. Carson's influence on the talk show genre is wide-ranging and global, and his biographical article sets out pretty clearly that he has a viable claim to be ranked in the "Top" category. I'm not going to do the "compare x with y" thing here - every Top article has a reason for it being there even if it's not always obvious why. But in the same context, Carson I believe is worth reassessing for consideration in the "Top" category. 70.73.90.119 (talk) 02:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Considered and narrowly decided to make this change. It looks like a number (possibly even most) of "Top"-importance articles are flagrantly not such an importance, but the importance should be reserved for main topics with extremely wide scope such as BBC One, Dating game show and History of television. Carson is a once-in-a-generation individual with long-lasting impact on a broad genre (talk shows), and an international household name (at least relative to his era). It's also been classified a level 4 Vital Article—if 10,000 articles are and 1/30 articles on Wikipedia are television-related then that puts him in the top 40 television-related articles by importance (though I do think a lot of Vital's methodology is dubious). — Bilorv (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC) Degrassi Junior High - Now for the article of the show itself (sorry for bombarding this with DJH articles). There still needs some fixing here and there; but I've found source upon source to expand this article greatly. The article originally looked like this before, and is rated Start-Class. The article was not structured properly, featured a whopping total of four sources, and featured a lot of cruft that was mostly original research. Half the page was dedicated to cultural references on the characters' clothing. I used the Featured article about Degrassi: The Next Generation as a reference point for the article structure. There is still a ways to go: the "Premise" section is just one sentence, for instance, but I've tried as hard as I can to cite multiple sources for most of the facts stated in the page (perhaps maybe veering into WP:CITEKILL territory). I've tried my best to make the article as comprehensive and well-sourced as possible. UPDATE May 3, 2021: A lot of the issues I mentioned are now for the most part fixed. ToQ100gou (talk) 06:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC) Sorry for missing this one, ToQ100gou. I've re-rated it B-class, and thanks for the submission and your work here. It's looking really good. Degrassi: The Next Generation was promoted in 2008 and could probably do with a touch-up to meet 2021 FA standards, but it's still nice enough to use as a model for something like this. Not much to criticise about DJH, other than a couple of ends of paragraphs without inline citations (not counting Premise and Cast, where the information is just sourced to the show itself). The heading "Other media" doesn't quite seem to fit the three subsections within it, so you might want to rethink whether those sections fit better under existing headers, or as their own (level 2) section. Also, in regard to this edit summary, the tag is just there to delete old versions of the image, which are no longer in use, not there to delete the whole file. If you're interested, you might want to consider nominating this for Good article status—sometimes it takes a couple of months before people pick up reviews for articles as long as this one, but I think it's definitely at the point where help from another reviewer could bring it to GA standard. — Bilorv (talk) 14:14, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the assessment. I will definitely look into nominating it for GA. I apologize for that tag revert too...I misread it. I can definitely change the Other media section. And upon further inspection of the page on TNG, there are a few typos and sentences worded in the present tense, so that might come under scrutiny. The DJH/DH articles are a higher priority right now for me however. Again, thank you. ToQ100gou (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Time Crashers - I have added an 'Episodes' section as well as making a few edits to improve coherence. I think it might have graduated from stub class. I'd hugely appreciate any comments as I'm new to Wikipedia and keen to learn! Unexpectedlydian (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the submission, Unexpectedlydian. I see you've fiddled about with the table format—either way you presented the information is better than nothing, because someone can always come along and improve it, which is what I've tried to do. You can look at an article that seems like it's in good shape and copy its code and adapt it to format things like this (which is what I did here). I like the sources you've added! Very high-quality: written by professionals, well-known, not tabloids. If I were working on this, my next step would be to add a "Reception" section with quotes and summaries of what reviewers thought of it—the Guardian piece already included is a good place to start. And then, the one which varies a bit more depending on what sources are available: a "Production" section saying logistical things like when the show was commissioned, when it aired and on what channel, but more importantly anything you can find about who came up with the idea for the show and why, how the celebrities got on board, any challenges during filming and any filming details. I find Google News is a good place to start my source searches, and you can filter by date and use quote marks to find exact phrases to avoid irrelevant news. — Bilorv (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your comments, Bilorv! Really appreciate the advice and assessment. I'm glad I'm on the right track with the sources. I'll see if I can continue expanding the article as you suggest. Thanks for all you're doing here :) Unexpectedlydian (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC) The Chosen (TV series) - This article has been rated a stub since it started in 2019 and looked like this. It has changed significantly and a lot of the original issues have been addressed, with now new issues creeping in. It could use a re-assessment and some guidance on where to take it from here. Thanks in advance! ButlerBlog (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC) @Butlerblog: thanks for the request! Here are my thoughts: Patheos and The Federalist, per WP:RSP, are unreliable for factual content. The "Cast and characters" looks a bit long to me: if it has such a wide main cast (makes sense for the subject, I guess) then I'd just list them and no others, but are all the "Main" cast definitely credited as such in the show? The plots look (from a spot-check) to just about fit in MOS:TVPLOT's 200 word limit, so that's fine, and they look decently-written. I'm not sure I like the "Scripture References" section: this needs a reliable source because it's a non-trivial inference from the plots. I'd also rather see it at the bottom of each episode description, as a note. "Background and production" could no doubt be fleshed out, but an outline is there. "Reception" is a start but we shouldn't cite Rotten Tomatoes with such a small sample size, as there's too much variance for the statistic to not be false precision—instead, look through the reviews RT lists and, of the Wikipedia-reliable ones, read them and summarize some of their major points in the section. Adding any other reviews you can find would be good too. I'm a fan of a bulkier lead, but that is partly just personal preference. Overall, then, it's definitely C-class—there's substantial content there and the outline of every section, but more work in several of the above areas is needed to meet the B-class criteria (criteria #1 and #2). — Bilorv (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC) Excellent feedback - thank you for taking the time. Much of it is stuff I pretty much figured, so it's good to get a valid confirmation of that and a little direction. What you said about the scripture references is exactly the direction I was thinking as well. The cast list is definitely problematic. There were some big differences between season 1 and 2 in terms of main cast, and I'm not sure if that will continue as the show progresses. I assume it will have some additional shifts. I'm expecting to promote the use of the table style layout described in MOS:TVCAST when it gets to season 3. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC) LuckyChap Entertainment I have added a considerable amount of information to this article, creating new sections and adding important detailed information, backed up with plenty of citations, so I don't think it should be rated as a stub class article anymore... Thanks so much! I appreciate your time! :) --Tasrockstar (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC) It's a stub, but it's not consistently using correct Wiki format, and it read very promotional. I've rated it C-class, but will tag it as such. Companies can be hard to write about as many secondary sources are generally not neutral, but there should be some examples you can take a look at to help achieve NPOV. I would also convert the film/TV tables to a filmography and an awards table, rather than put it all in one. Kingsif (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC) I think you meant that it's not a stub, Kingsif. I agree that it's C-class but the tone is very much a concern. Other than the occasional "the company says that", it could be a press release. It just all needs toning down a lot. I understand it's an interesting topic and exciting to have a women-led company in a particularly patriarchal industry, but less is more, and you serve the topic better by letting the facts speak for themselves. Allow the reader to get their own takeaway message rather than going too hard on what the company says about itself and its standards (have you ever seen a company say that it has low standards or isn't proud of what it's done/produced?). I understand this is something a lot of newcomers have difficulty with, though, and I don't think it's easy to concretely point to everything that adds up to the cumulative effect of it reading like an advert. — Bilorv (talk) 23:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC) LuckyChap Entertainment Hi! @Bilorv: @Kingsif: Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, I appreciate it! I totally agree with what you guys have said completely. I have spent most of the day doing quite a bit of editing, so it might be worth another re-assessment. I have removed nearly all 'promotional language' and have deleted most of the "female focused" paragraph where I was saying what the 'company said' too much (unnecessary biased comments from the company etc). Within the 'female focused' section, I have also added a paragraph on how the company has been criticized by fans and other film critiques, to make the article more neutral and non biased. Lastly, I have also added a large new 'production history' section, where I describe the timeline of the company's productions in detail, which I think has also made the article less promotional. Please let me know how you reassess, and if you think the promotional tone tag can be removed now after all my editing! Thanks so much again! :) Tasrockstar (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC) @Tasrockstar: thanks for the replies and further editing. I've gone through with a rework from top to bottom, including some Wikipedia-specific things (link a topic and use full name only on first mention; concise section headers; American English for an American topic) and some writing improvements or factors related to promotional tone (avoid repetition; concision; attribute who "some critics" are). Let me know if you have any questions about any specific changes here. From stub to C-class is a much stronger achievement than most student editors make, but I think we are pushing B-class here. However, there remains some unsourced text, such as the Dreamland and Film Victoria paragraph. If you can add sources for all the rest of the prose that lacks an inline citation then I might be inclined to upgrade the rating. — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv: Hi again! Thankyou so much ! I appreciate your help! I have just added the sources for the Film Victoria and Dreamland text. Funnily enough, I actually had those two specific sources on my word document I've been writing on, they must have just been lost along the way as I added onto Wikipedia! haha my mistake & apologies for that. I have also read through and added sources to every other bit of text that needed them, so now the whole article has relevant sources. Please let me know what you think! Thanks! :) Tasrockstar (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2021 (UTC) Brilliant! Upgraded to B-class. Thanks for your hard work, Tasrockstar. The page has been getting a good number of views so your writing will be very useful to readers. — Bilorv (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv: Awesome! Thankyou so much again for your help! :) Tasrockstar (talk) 00:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC) 1st Streamy Awards and 2nd Streamy Awards both of which I've expanded from stubs although I'm uncertain as to how highly to classify them beyond that. Thanks! Alduin2000 (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC) I'm going to throw a curveball, Alduin2000, and rate them both as List-class. I see these types of pages sometimes rated as lists and sometimes as articles—in fact they actually were one of each to begin with—but I think these two fit the list format better as the majority of the content (even if the page was "complete") would be a simple list of the award winners and nominees. If you feel strongly that it shouldn't be a list, feel free to change the assessment yourself—I'd go with B-class (for both) in that case. Thanks for your hard work! — Bilorv (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Thanks Bilorv! That makes sense; checking other more high-profile award shows' articles, it looks like they are considered list articles too so list-Class definitely seems better than B-Class. Alduin2000 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC) The Reagans (2020 miniseries) - I expanded this article a bit; it's currently ranked at Stub-class, but it seems to be at least Start-class now. Thanks! Isi96 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC) @Isi96: it's C-class. Thanks for your work! I noticed that the episode summaries looked like the length and teaser-y style of official episode descriptions, so I used a search engine and found they are copyright violations, as you can see at https://www.amazon.com/Reagans-Limited-Season-1/dp/B08MB9XQCP. I've asked for revision deletion of the versions of the page which violated copyright. — Bilorv (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv: Thanks for the review. I had no idea that the episode descriptions were copyrighted material; sorry for not noticing sooner. I added some episode descriptions in my own words; maybe you could check those as well? Isi96 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC) @Isi96: that's okay, not your fault. The new descriptions look good—I've substituted some synonyms for "discusses" since that was a bit overused. (Per MOS:TVPLOT, these descriptions should be under 200 words, and I usually think most shows can make it to at least 100 words per episode—these ones are 30–70 words, so they could be longer. But others may feel differently about whether there's an ideal length, and it doesn't need to be longer just for the sake of being longer.) — Bilorv (talk) 11:07, 13 July 2021 (UTC) @Bilorv: John Oliver Memorial Sewer Plant we're at C-class right now—what would I need to do to bring this to B or GA class? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC) An interesting question, Theleekycauldron. It's a bit away from my field of expertise, as the article is about a sewer plant, but I think expansion is the main thing needed. I know it can be difficult with topics like these, but you need to squeeze as much information about the plant itself as exists. Try a few search terms that are date-limited to before the first LWT segment or use exclusion terms like -"John Oliver". I'd like to know more about the plant's founding and construction, the need for it and what preceded it, and how its operation is going so far. Local sources are generally okay for these contexts. — Bilorv (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

2022

2022 answered assessments

The End (Australian TV series) I have been working on this stub article as a part of a university course and would love to have it assessed. Hoping it qualifies for start class or C class. Thank you for your time :) Charlieindigotango (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC) Fantastic work, Charlieindigotango! A very interesting topic, too. It's C-class in my view. Thank you for your volunteering. — Bilorv (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Awesome!! Thanks so much for the assessment Bilorv! Appreciate you taking the time to read :) — Charlieindigotango (talk) 06:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC) NFL on ABC This article has been worked on and has gotten in pretty good shape so I would like to see it assessed. Mannysoloway (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC) @Mannysoloway: thanks for the nomination. There looks to be some content in the article that has been copied from other articles e.g. "As a result of the 1982 television contract signed by the NFL with the three networks" from History of ESPN on ABC. Please read Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and provide some method of attribution—{{Copied}} on the talk page or dummy edits with attribution in the edit summaries. Once this is done, I'll look at it again and give a rating. — Bilorv (talk) 15:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC) @Mannysoloway: any follow-up on this? It's really important that we attribute content that has been copied within Wikipedia. — Bilorv (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC) Taiwan+ I have a COI disclosed on my user page. I have posted some suggestions to the talk page of the artictle and would appreciate it being assessed. Would it merit being moved from start class to C class? Thanks so much!Rchouman (talk) 09:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC) Answered at Talk:Taiwan+#TaiwanPlus Suggested Revisions (permalink). — Bilorv (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC) Kaliveedu (Malayalam TV series) - I have expanded this article considerably creating new sections. Now it needs quality and importance assessment. Thanks! CRICKETMANIAC303 (talk) 18:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the request, CRICKETMANIAC303! I can see you've introduced all of the missing major sections that should be included in the article: Plot, Production, Reception and "Awards and nominations". In my opinion, the article is C-class; the next step would be expansion and improvement in some of these sections—particularly Reception (I'd like to see a lot more film reviews), and I'm sure you can get a better source than Instagram for the awards (are there any more?). — Bilorv (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Kamen Rider Build I've restructured the article in accordance to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television. Can someone reassess it? Thanks. WeiWenn (talk) 03:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC) Thanks for your work on this, WeiWenn. Your edits have improved the flow of the article, and it's got decent pageviews too so it's an important task. However, I think the article is still at C-class (which in my opinion is the broadest rating class). Reviewing the B-class criteria, I don't think the article meets criteria #1 and #2 (and possibly others). The following feedback will largely be unrelated to your edits, I think, but is a summary of what I think needs to be addressed before B-class can be seriously considered. I can't say that I'm an expert in the topic, so my feedback on referencing will be quite limited, but the article doesn't have as many citations as I would expect to see. Several of the references are to Twitter and YouTube, which is poor. Others like "フィギュア王248 2018" and "特写 2019" seem to reference books that are not clearly cited: clicking on the links doesn't take you anywhere and I don't see where the fully expanded citation is given. Good sources are books, newspaper articles, professional reviews of the show, interviews and so on. On #2, though it appears as though your edits have rightly reduced the amount of in-universe minutiae in the article, a lot more real-world context is needed. For instance, the sentence "The monsters were designed in a way so that their motif are not immediately obvious" raises more questions than it answers. I'd want to see something like that fleshed out into a full paragraph. What inspired the creators of the show? What challenges did they face in the writing process? Were there unexpected difficulties in the greenlighting or production process? What did the cast say about their characters and roles and filming process? Many or all of these questions would need answering to take the article to the next level. Thanks for the request and let me know if you have any follow-up questions. I hope the feedback helps you learn a bit more about what a high-quality article should look like. — Bilorv (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Thanks for the assessment. I will see what can be done about citations and production info. WeiWenn (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC) Ein starkes Team – This page was assessed as Stub in 2011. Some of my edits in 2015 ought to have gotten it to a Start level. I have just done some additional edits and am hoping it might qualify for C-class now. Any comments are appreciated. Thanks for the assessment! -Eddyspeeder (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC) @Eddyspeeder: thanks for the request! I think it's teetering on the edge of C-class, but I've rated it Start-class. The article gives a good overview of the show's interesting release cycle and the main themes and plot ideas, but it is a bit lacking in referencing and details of reception. I would like to see summaries of reviews from the past and present and some information about viewership (particularly for older episodes where that was a more robust measurement of success). I believe the content on real-life production history, characters and plot, and critical analysis could also be expanded and restructured to the point where they were perhaps separated in different sections. I can't see any information at present about creators, writers, directors and other production details—but I'm curious to know whether it's mostly the same people as it was 30 years ago or if there's large turnover every year. A bulleted section on "Characters" could also be good. I hope this feedback helps you improve the article further: I know it's a lot but you might only need a couple of these improvements to get to C-class. — Bilorv (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC) Thank you for this feedback, @Bilorv:! This is indeed very helpful because it helps me focus on the directions I need to dig into. I had a bit of trouble estimating what might be of interest to an audience outside of Germany, so it really helps me to have a neutral perspective on this. -Eddyspeeder (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC) America's Funniest Home Videos: Animal Edition - Took it from a stub to start. Mjhtcarfan (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC) @Mjhtcarfan: agreed! Thank you for the expansion, particularly in referencing. It's now got a good level of basic detail about the show. I notice that File:Alt-AFVanimaledition-logo.jpg has a rationale saying that its purpose is to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the entity in question. However, it doesn't serve that purpose: File:AFVAnimalEdition.png does. I don't think we often use two logos, only the latest one—in that position in the infobox. I would recommend removal of the alternative logo from the article and it should then be automatically deleted (you can also request deletion under G7; let me know if you need help with that). — Bilorv (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2022 (UTC) @Bilorv: Thanks for rating the page. For the assessment, I was hoping the TV taskforce or a regular editor from the AFV page could have a look and take over to advance quality some more. >>reality-tv=yes|reality-tv-importance=low? Mjhtcarfan (talk) 04:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC) @Mjhtcarfan: I've added the parameters you suggested. If you want other editors to make improvements to the article, then Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television is probably the best place to ask. — Bilorv (talk) 09:49, 12 June 2022 (UTC) The Chamber (game show) - I did some work revising and expanding this start-class article late last year and earlier this year, and am wondering where it would place on re-assessment.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC) @Sunshineisles2: I've gone with B-class (some tweaks here). For a short-lived show like this from a while ago, I think the sourcing is very good, though it is perhaps still the weakest area. The Throwbacks link doesn't work for me and I'm not convinced of its reliability; I'm not sure if Tom Hoffarth has sufficient expertise for his blog to be reliable. The following also sounds like an opinion that would need prose attribution, or substitution if it's not based on a reference: "host Rick Schwartz was little more than a color commentator". But overall, the article does a lot of things right and the leap from Start-class to B-class is a big one. Thanks for your work! — Bilorv (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC) @Bilorv: Thanks for the review! Yes, I do have some quibbles about the sourcing in some places as well, particularly the Throwbacks article; thanks for alerting me that it's now down as well. The claim it sources is one of the more "infamous" claims about the show that gets brought up whenever it's talked about online (which due to its quite startling premise, is a lot more than one would suspect for a three-episode game show from 20 years ago), and thus there should be something better to back it up. As for your other note, there was more opinion-style commentary in the article when I first stumbled across it, but it looks like I missed some of it in my editing, and I should have cut that line about Schwartz earlier.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

2023

• The Chosen (TV series) - I previously requested outside assessment in May of 2021, at which time it was assessed as C-class. Since then, I have been able to add some much more solid source coverage (such as NYT, the Atlantic, and WSJ) and fix some of the items pointed out from that assessment. I have worked to expand the readable prose from around 900 words to around 3500. I think it is solid B class at present, and even though I have a lot more experience assessing other articles in the last 18 months, there is a definite benefit to an outside pair of eyes. There are still some key items I'm working to improve but have held off to avoid page instability. I'm hoping that outside assessment gives some support and direction to further improvements. TIA. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the request, Butlerblog, and great to see you back with a much improved article! I agree that it is clearly a B-class article; I've done a little bit of copyediting here.
    I think Reception could be expanded—I want to know more details about how the acting, deviation from the Bible, cinematography etc. was received. There's a tag on a source at "Awards and accolades"; "Viewership" and "Themes" are the other sections where it looks like there could be room for expansion. Conversely, the episode summaries might be spun off into List of The Chosen episodes. The article could probably also benefit from a deeper copyedit (like by WP:GOCE but there might be a bit of a wait). However, I think GA quality is in sight, although you would have to think about its stability as the series is ongoing.
    Overall, fantastic work on a highly viewed article! — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for doing the assessement, and I appreciate you taking the time to do it. That's definitely some helpful guidance which will give me some focus areas. Getting it to GA is my next target. ButlerBlog (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Forged in Fire – The article has been considerably expanded since the last assessment in 2015. In its current state, the article, in my opinion, could easily be better than just Start class. CYAce01 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the request, CYAce01! I think there are a few reasons this wouldn't meet the B-class criteria, but it meets C-class in my opinion—"The article is substantial but is still missing important content [and] contains much irrelevant material" is an accurate description. Many of the sources given are not the most reliable and more of them are needed; there is also a lot of format point and episode details. A Reception section summarising critical reviews, more interviews with production members and participants, and any other reliable secondary sources would go towards improving the article further. — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
• The Newsreader - I've spent a lot of time since mid-2022 improving the article significantly, adding a tonne of production information being one example. I recognise that the article isn't perfect, and is probably a tad overly detailed in some places (and I've probably overdone it on the quotes; but I have an 'include as much detail as you can just in case it's relevant' approach!), but it's definitely not Stub class anymore; I just don't want to reclassify it myself and underestimate or overestimate its quality. --Phinbart (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your work on the article, Phinbart! It certainly isn't Stub-class, I agree, and I've re-rated it as C-class. Of the six B-class criteria, I think only #4 is not met and it's for a reason you identify.
    The quotes in the Production section are excessive—not necessarily the information or length, but the proportion of content that is quoted. Per MOS:QUOTE: Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. If a quote is used, it should be clear (without looking at the references) who said the quote, and why their exact wording is needed.
    Let's take this segment as an example: Over the course of 2015 and 2016, Lucas began researching newsrooms of the 1980s, interviewing those who worked in them at the time and hearing "eyepopping stories about the culture". Lucas claimed that the relatively nascent arrival of female newsreaders in the 1980s was something that "caught his attention" in his research; “it was just such an era of change. I was particularly obsessed with female newsreaders because they were a new development in the 80s, prior to that people just liked hearing the news read by very masculine voices of God. There was so much pressure on them. They had to find a way to define how a woman should look in a workplace, and they had such a strong, striking look.". I would rewrite it as something like: Over the course of 2015 and 2016, Lucas researched newsrooms of the 1980s, interviewing those who worked in them and learning about the culture. Lucas was interested in the relatively nascent arrival of female newsreaders in the 1980s, describing it as an "era of change". Lucas said that before this change, viewers enjoyed listening to "very masculine voices of God". Women faced significant pressure in newsrooms, as their appearances were taken to signify the way women should present themselves in a workplace. Be merciless with the rewriting! Most of the time, an adjective like "eyepopping" or a particular phrasing does not add to the readers' understanding. If something is said in Wikipedia's words ("relatively nascent arrival") then don't quote it again ("they were a new development").
    I hope this feedback is useful! — Bilorv (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I had a feeling quoting was a problem; it's always something I've had trouble with, thinking I'll butcher or bastardise the original words if I try and paraphrase them. I'll work on it!--Phinbart (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
• Beebo the God of War I was bored and decided to start a personal effort to catalogue my favorite show. This page was previously a redirect and I am hoping that somebody could anaylise it and tell me what I can improve on. This is my first article and I have put a lot of work into it. OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the request, OlifanofmrTennant! I've looked at both this and Aruba (Legends of Tomorrow), making an edit to each. I've rated both articles C-class, which is a completely respectable level. I usually advise against newcomers creating new articles, but episode articles are where I started when I first reached that stage. My advice in descending order of priority would be:
    • Finding reliable sources should be the first, lengthiest and most important stage of article creation. This is needed to establish notability, otherwise the article could be restored to a redirect. I still regularly abandon planned new articles during my initial reference search as insufficient sources exist for notability.
      Sources such as IMDb are no good as they are user-generated: we want to report what professionals said. Episode articles can have plot summaries without explicit inline citations, so sources are primarily needed to make 'Reception' and 'Production' sections. IGN, The A.V. Club and Collider contribute to notability, but with only two or three sources many TV-focused editors would not consider this sufficient.
    • When writing 'Reception', consider MOS:QUOTE: fundamentally we want to keep quotes to a minimum to maintain encyclopedic style. It is better to say (e.g.) "Doe praised the plot twist as surprising" than to quote Doe saying "I found the plot twist surprising". If reviewers' wording is worth quoting exactly then try cutting it to the minimum words needed: e.g. "This is the most quirky, offbeat and unexpected episode we've ever seen" could be "Doe found it the 'most quirky, offbeat and unexpected' episode yet".
    • Even something as simple as where the article title comes from is original research if not backed by a reliable source.
    • Note that MOS:TVPLOT gives a word limit of 400 for episode article synopses.
    • I've adapted the formatting a bit—learning the rules comes over time and it's easy for others to fix, so this should be of least concern.

  Let me know if you have any follow-up questions! — Bilorv (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

• OK-JEK - A new article about an Indonesian show. I'm aware that the English can use some improvement. Daud (talk) 04:13, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Daud I.F. Argana: thanks for the request and your work on the article! I've rated it as C-class. The English is good, and I've made a couple of small improvements. All the important sections are present and sources are well-used, but some more expansion would be needed for B-class. Given the number of episodes, I would imagine that more interviews and reviews exist. — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Marc Guggenheim - This article has recived singifact changes since its last assesment and I think someone should reevaluate it. OLI 21:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @OlifanofmrTennant: re-rated as C-class as it contains a substantial amount of content, but needs a lot of cleanup work. Much content like writing credits can just about be taken as implicitly sourced to the work itself, but more reliable sources would be needed for B-class, as well as fleshing out some one-sentence paragraphs, adding some interviews/reviews or rewriting for flow of the article. — Bilorv (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
• Meet the Legends - I wanted to get an assesment on this so I can identify problems and respond to them accordingly before I begin my next article for Legends of Tomorrow, OLI 20:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @OlifanofmrTennant: thanks for the request! I've rated it as C-class. Sourcing is good and structure is present. A B-class article would show additional detail and perhaps some freely licensed images (perhaps of some guest actor or actor with a larger role than usual in this episode). Some sentences need rewording, like The episode is the intended opener to the fifth season however it is sometimes considered the second due to "Crisis on Infinite Earths". — Bilorv (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Bilorv: I added an image does it reach the quality need for B class? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlifanofmrTennant (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
      • @OlifanofmrTennant: there's a few issues with the recent changes, though no harm done. Hopefully this edit summary makes most of my changes clear. Additionally, I've nominated File:Meet the Legends.jpeg for deletion as I do not believe it meets the non-free content criteria (NFCC). Volunteer views differ on whether screenshots of an episode alongside relevant commentary typically meet NFCC, but I think few would agree that images of actors not in their fictional roles meet NFCC. It is hard work to get freely licensed images but some of the hard work may have been done for you, if you look through actors' articles (e.g. Caity Lotz) and the relevant Wikimedia Commons information (e.g. commons:Category:Caity Lotz).
        Overall, I still think the article could do with a bit more expansion, a free image with a caption that shows the image's relevance, and another editor's eyes on the grammar and wording. Hope this helps! — Bilorv (talk) 09:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
• Resurrection (Stargate SG-1) - my work here was reviewed and given a C; just wondered if someone could take the time to give a little feedback of what I need to be doing differently? (I've been slowly rebuilding Stargate SG-1 episode articles - see also: Chimera (Stargate SG-1), Death Knell (Stargate SG-1), Grace (Stargate SG-1), Lifeboat (Stargate SG-1), Wormhole X-Treme!, Enemy Mine (Stargate SG-1), Space Race (Stargate SG-1)). Any feedback & suggestions would be appreciated! Thanks :) --Mehehehea (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Statistics

Article quality statistics

As of 10 July 2024, there are 110,764 articles within the scope of WikiProject Television, of which 538 are featured. This makes up 1.62% of the articles on Wikipedia and 4.7% of featured articles and lists. Including non-article pages, such as talk pages, redirects, categories, etcetera, there are 269,616 pages in the project.

Television article rating and assessment scheme
(NB: Quality stats are updated on a daily basis by a bot. Log not available)

Daily log of status changes

Current Statistics

Television articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 11 35 162 208 FL 7 64 230 11 312 FM 8 8 GA 7 56 237 2,128 502 2,930 B 27 190 501 1,287 347 2,352 C 38 270 1,049 8,321 1 1,582 11,261 Start 30 392 1,845 30,035 9 8,380 40,691 Stub 32 326 15,047 3 10,669 26,077 List 1 47 568 7,417 33 3,527 11,593 Category 1 757 36,740 37,498 Disambig 46 349 395 File 19 50 203 35,618 35,890 Portal 73 73 Project 7 21 6 401 435 Redirect 2 40 289 5,130 73,543 79,004 Template 4 7 159 4,332 4,502 NA 1 10 26 2 39 Draft 1 3 134 630 768 Assessed 105 1,077 4,996 71,072 151,766 25,020 254,036 Unassessed 1 2 620 23 14,691 15,337 Total 106 1,077 4,998 71,692 151,789 39,711 269,373 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 417,877 Ω = 5.00

Popular pages

• Popular pages: A bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles.

Assessment log

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Main page: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Television articles by quality log