Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Film

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rlp17 (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 11 August 2013 (→‎Requests for assessment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main pageAssessmentHelpParticipantsCoordinatorsSpotlightOutreachResourcesPortalRecognized content
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox
Shortcuts

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Film! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Film articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Film}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Film articles by quality, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Film WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Instructions

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

{{WikiProject Film|class=}}

Quality scale

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

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

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

Core articles

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

Film grading scheme

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/Grading scheme. (edit | history)
WikiProject Film article progress grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. The Dark Knight
(as of January 2023)
 GA The article has attained good article status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article criteria:

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Enola Holmes (film)
(as of December 2022)
B The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the five B-Class criteria:
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for a good article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Julieta (film)
(as of July 2016)
C The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. Joy (film)
(as of July 2016)
Start An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. Life Partners
(as of July 2016)
Stub A very basic description of the topic.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.
 Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The Star (2002 film)
(as of July 2016)
 FL The article has attained featured list status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. List of highest-grossing films
(as of January 2023)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of 2015 box office number-one films in the United States
(as of July 2016)
SIA Meets the criteria of a set index article, which is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. A set index article is not a disambiguation page. Meant for information as well as navigation; should have a clear layout which is easy to follow. A set index article should follow the same style guidelines for a stand-alone list, and can be tagged with {{set index article}}. Film adaptations of Crime and Punishment
(as of November 2015)

Requests for assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. (Note that this is not required; any editor may assess or re-assess an article on their own, if acting in good faith.)

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

On hold. Currently up for GA review. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To submit an article for GA assessment you should follow the instructions at WP:GAN/I; however it won't pass in its current state since there is insufficient coverage of the production period. Betty Logan (talk) 21:24, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The Wolverine (film) - Rated Start, hope to get a better grade and some advice on a future GA nom. igordebraga ≠ 01:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Special Chabbis, Start Class impending B-Class review. $oHƎM❊আড্ডা 14:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re:Generation - Rated as stub, but based on the criteria listed above, in my opinion it should be a start or C because there's not anymore info on the documentary. All the info is taken straight from the music project's website and I've spent hours looking elsewhere only to come up with info that is the same as the project's site or even less detailed.--♠|RP|♠ 18:48, 11 August 2013 (UTC)


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

Statistics

Current status

Overall project

Film pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 189
FL 482
A 1
GA 1,415
B 1,397
C 9,884
Start 69,557
Stub 96,183
List 13,015
Category 52,448
Disambig 359
File 106,709
Portal 19
Project 229
Redirect 11,255
Template 9,328
NA 5
Assessed 372,475
Unassessed 670
Total 373,145
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 971,441 Ω = 5.44


Statistics by task force

Film articles by task forces
Quality American cinema Argentine cinema Australian cinema Baltic cinema British cinema Canadian cinema Chinese cinema Christian films Comic book films Core list Film awards Film festivals Filmmaking
FA 117 1 3 0 26 9 3 2 5 23 0 0 2
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GA 915 3 25 0 174 59 14 5 96 67 8 2 15
B 822 4 38 1 143 58 15 12 77 58 7 7 69
C 4,760 39 247 8 857 366 143 54 280 228 60 100 440
Start 25,686 308 1,468 59 5,142 2,264 1,792 264 631 150 566 791 2,031
Stub 29,983 1,233 1,760 184 6,254 3,518 1,921 159 176 4 500 709 1,843
FL 219 1 3 1 37 5 1 0 14 0 255 1 0
List 2,981 115 253 16 549 439 368 5 69 0 5,822 671 137
Category 5,533 71 640 51 1,293 477 239 91 299 0 787 424 9,142
Disambig 23 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 8 0 3
File 576 0 3 0 54 11 13 4 184 1 16 3 13
Portal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redirect 2,189 157 70 2 351 102 27 30 260 0 598 50 339
Template 623 20 0 9 131 71 42 5 41 0 575 42 151
NA 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0
Unassessed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Total 74,651 1,952 4,544 332 15,021 7,384 4,574 634 2,202 532 9,205 2,803 14,198
Quality French cinema German cinema Indian cinema Italian cinema Japanese cinema Korean cinema New Zealand cinema Nordic cinema Persian cinema Southeast Asian cinema Soviet and post-Soviet cinema Spanish cinema War films
FA 5 5 31 3 5 0 1 0 0 21 1 0 9
A 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GA 46 39 200 32 60 3 15 18 0 31 7 7 49
B 52 37 162 22 68 9 17 16 3 18 12 9 85
C 337 209 1,608 183 372 95 49 123 20 166 69 192 852
Start 2,446 1,387 14,256 1,399 2,077 920 185 822 177 1,601 910 998 2,286
Stub 5,733 5,611 10,087 5,335 2,045 769 184 2,682 378 1,270 1,960 1,358 1,411
FL 4 1 114 2 5 2 0 0 0 9 0 1 3
List 392 173 2,089 256 250 245 27 227 23 335 221 186 54
Category 564 346 1,143 356 469 155 80 374 53 412 310 155 587
Disambig 1 2 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
File 32 19 149 12 62 7 4 9 5 4 14 2 9
Portal 0 0 53 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redirect 115 38 938 65 260 24 10 47 9 38 20 24 33
Template 106 46 370 76 86 36 3 78 14 47 44 67 26
NA 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Unassessed 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0
Total 9,836 7,915 29,583 7,744 5,983 2,397 582 4,400 683 3,959 3,569 2,999 4,806

Historical counts

Historical counts for the overall project. All figures are taken from the end of each quarter.
Quality June 2006 September 2006 December 2006 March 2007 June 2007 September 2007
FA 18 0.17% 23 0.18% 34 0.2% 41 0.18% 51 0.18% 56 0.18%
FL n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
A 2 0.02% 5 0.04% 6 0.03% 5 0.02% 8 0.03% 12 0.04%
GA 8 0.08% 11 0.09% 28 0.16% 57 0.25% 61 0.22% 85 0.27%
B 72 0.68% 540 4.29% 860 4.95% 954 4.25% 967 3.5% 1006 3.22%
Start 54 0.51% 3455 27.42% 5611 32.29% 5852 26.09% 6021 21.8% 6164 19.71%
Stub 7 0.07% 6676 52.99% 10831 62.33% 15516 69.18% 20503 74.25% 22236 71.11%
List n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a
Assessed 161 1.53% 10710 85.01% 17370 99.96% 22425 99.99% 27611 99.99% 29559 94.53%
Unassessed 10375 98.47% 1889 14.99% 7 0.04% 3 0.01% 2 0.01% 1712 5.47%
Total 10536 12599 17377 22428 27613 31271
Quality December 2007 March 2008 June 2008 September 2008 December 2008 March 2009
FA 71 0.19% 80 0.2% 72 0.17% 72 0.16% 73 0.15% 77 0.14%
FL n/a n/a 12 0.03% 22 0.05% 24 0.05% 27 0.05%
A 28 0.08% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0.002% 2 0.004%
GA 136 0.37% 154 0.38% 189 0.44% 217 0.47% 249 0.51% 274 0.5%
B 1221 3.32% 1312 3.26% 1339 3.11% 251 0.55% 259 0.53% 274 0.5%
Start 7093 19.28% 7557 18.76% 7871 18.26% 9247 20.12% 9540 19.52% 9866 18.04%
Stub 25212 68.53% 27607 68.52% 29811 69.15% 32182 70.01% 34515 70.62% 36811 67.32%
List 3015 8.19% 3580 8.88% 3804 8.82% 3979 8.66% 4106 8.4% 4465 8.17%
Assessed 36776 99.96% 40290 99.99% 43098 99.97% 45970 100% 48767 99.78% 51796 94.72%
Unassessed 16 0.04% 3 0.01% 11 0.03% 0 0% 108 0.22% 2885 5.28%
Total 36792 40293 43109 45970 48875 54681
Quality June 2009 September 2009 December 2009 March 2010 June 2010 September 2010
FA 75 0.14% 76 0.12% 77 0.12% 78 0.12% 78 0.12% 80 0.11%
FL 33 0.06% 34 0.06% 34 0.05% 35 0.05% 40 0.06% 45 0.06%
A 3 0.005% 3 0.005% 2 0.003% 2 0.003% 2 0.003% 2 0.003%
GA 278 0.5% 277 0.45% 283 0.45% 296 0.46% 317 0.49% 324 0.43%
B 313 0.56% 331 0.54% 366 0.58% 407 0.63% 411 0.63% 410 0.54%
C n/a n/a 450 0.72% 1646 2.57% 1726 2.66% 1789 2.38%
Start 10023 18.05% 10349 16.89% 10290 16.41% 10288 16.04% 11161 17.23% 11642 15.46%
Stub 38342 69.04% 40956 66.82% 42782 68.23% 42215 68.95% 45610 70.42% 48311 64.14%
List 4315 7.77% 4418 7.21% 4861 7.75% 5159 8.05% 5296 8.18% 5410 7.18% Category n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 4760 6.32%
Disambig n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 250 0.33%
Template n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1845 2.45%
NA n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 33 0.04%
Assessed 53382 96.13% 56444 92.09% 59145 94.32% 62126 96.88% 64653 99.82% 74926 99.47%
Unassessed 2151 3.87% 4847 7.91% 3559 5.68% 2000 3.12% 114 0.18% 400 0.53%
Total 55533 61291 62704 64126 64767 75326
Quality December 2010 March 2011 June 2011 September 2011 December 2011 March 2012
FA 81 0.1% 81 0.1% 81 0.09% 82 0.09% 82 0.08% 84 0.08%
FL 46 0.06% 46 0.06% 49 0.06% 57 0.06% 59 0.06% 62 0.06%
A 2 0.003% 2 0.002% 3 0.003% 2 0% 2 0% 2 0%
GA 337 0.43% 360 0.43% 372 0.43% 390 0.42% 415 0.43% 428 0.42%
B 423 0.54% 422 0.51% 429 0.49% 436 0.47% 436 0.45% 440 0.43%
C 1832 2.34% 1894 2.28% 1950 2.23% 2014 2.21% 2115 2.18% 2204 2.14%
Start 12004 15.35% 12545 15.12% 13036 14.91% 13644 14.74% 14219 14.67% 15302 14.86%
Stub 50211 64.2% 53569 64.57% 54723 62.6% 57919 62.58% 60797 62.74% 61510 59.72%
List 5418 6.93% 5537 6.67% 5918 6.77% 6090 6.58% 6410 6.61% 6621 6.43%
Category 5286 6.76% 5463 6.59% 7461 8.54% 7914 8.55% 8245 8.51% 9195 8.93%
Disambig 247 0.32% 259 0.33% 266 0.3% 273 0.29% 274 0.28% 297 0.29%
Template 1927 2.46% 2683 3.23% 3014 3.45% 3217 3.48% 3307 3.41% 3637 3.53%
NA 18 0.02% 53 0.06% 62 0.07% 274 0.2% 449 0.46% 671 0.08%
Assessed 77868 99.57% 82953 100% 87404 99.99% 92295 99.72% 96852 99.94% 100227 97.3%
Unassessed 337 0.43% 4 0% 8 0.01% 256 0.28% 56 0.06% 2777 2.7%
Total 78205 82957 87412 92551 96908 103004
Quality June 2012 September 2012 December 2012 March 2013 June 2013 September 2013
FA 85 0.08% 88 0.08% 92 0.08% 90 0.06% 92 0.08% 98 0.08%
FL 63 0.06% 67 0.06% 75 0.07% 81 0.07% 90 0.08% 100 0.08%
A 2 0.002% 4 0.004% 4 0% 4 0% 4 0% 3 0%
GA 445 0.42% 464 0.43% 479 0.43% 507 0.44% 538 0.46% 558 0.46%
B 445 0.42% 450 0.42% 449 0.4% 453 0.39% 456 0.39% 463 0.38%
C 2298 2.19% 2404 2.24% 2479 2.21% 2535 2.21% 2571 2.18% 2644 2.19%
Start 15644 14.9% 16836 15.67% 18805 16.78% 20519 17.87% 21858 18.5% 24348 20.19%
Stub 62090 59.12% 62637 58.3% 66150 59.04% 66389 57.8% 67710 57.31% 66715 55.32%
List 6673 6.35% 6780 6.31% 7105 6.34% 7264 6.32% 7384 6.25% 7494 6.21%
Category 9417 8.97% 9496 8.84% 9766 8.72% 10029 8.73% 10813 9.15% 11445 9.49%
Disambig 301 0.29% 307 0.29% 315 0.28% 325 0.28% 327 0.28% 341 0.28%
File n/a 693 0.62% 751 0.65% 804 0.68% 842 0.7%
Redirect n/a 499 0.46% 720 0.64% 799 0.28% 833 0.71% 919 0.76%
Template 3713 3.54% 3876 3.61% 4105 3.66% 4245 3.7% 4359 3.69% 4421 3.67%
NA 832 0.79% 698 0.65% 68 0.06% 35 0.03% 33 0.03% 34 0.03%
Assessed 102052 97.18% 104650 97.41% 110629 98.73% 144701 125.99% 117954 99.84% 120507 99.93%
Unassessed 2963 2.82% 2783 2.59% 2783 1.27% 154 0.13% 154 0.16% 88 0.07%
Total 105015 107433 112050 114855 118145 120595

Assessment log

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

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment&oldid=568105454"