Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated NA-class)
Wikipe-tan head.png This page is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This is a project page and is not rated on the assessment scale.

Change wording on C-class[edit]

Change the first section to read:

The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have a significant number of references to reliable sources - especially secondary sources., but However, it may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.

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, over reliance on primary or related sources or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from anin-universe perspective.

This reflects the current practice of requiring secondary sources to not only flesh out material, specifically in reception and impact sections which are generally seen as a requirement to have something there. Also relying too heavily on the primary source material (or press releases and the like) has generally been seen as a sign of lower-quality start-level article.Jinnai 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, however, it is not quite so easy. We are using the standard assessment template ({{Grading scheme}}). As such, you will thus have to propose the change here, they usually reply within a day or so. G.A.Stalk 04:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Grading examples are outdated[edit]

Several of the examples are either outdated because they have since been promoted or worse, have been demoted and are no longer good examples of anything. Therefore we should decide on a updated set of examples. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually the grading examples are time stamped so they show the assessment at that time. Are there any that were missed or not reflective of the current standards? Should better examples be used? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem with that is standards change all the time, what was considered suitable at the time might not pass now in the same state. If we are using articles as examples for each grade of people to aim for, they should reflect that grade now. I think 5 years is more than enough time to review the examples. I'm not saying we need to review all of them but at the very least review the ones that have changed rating and no longer fit the grade they are suggested with. They are enough newer articles to consider as replacements that would make better examples of current standards. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Hmm yes. I think I'll slap on new examples when I can, without an archive unless they are in poor condition. The newest FA was school rumble, FL was Code Geass. GA's will be more difficult to choose from, but I'm hoping to choose 3 to exemplify an article/character/film. I would suggest Rozen Maiden, Lelouch Lamperouge (After some easy fix up), and the last to be either Spirited Away or Summer Wars. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


The assessment article has an entry A-class, which is used on some other wikiprojects. Are there plans to add that here? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

A class require 2 reviewers from the project who are willing to review at FA/FL levels. It'd be more efficient to focus for GA or to make the leap to FA/FL. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Current Status Error[edit]

The current status tool is throwing an error when I click on any of the links.

The toolslab expired. Can't be helped as far as I know. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
It's now back up, as is the bot report for importance/quality changes (although most recent report is 10 days old, but it should catch up soon). SephyTheThird (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure how it stands now that Reflinks no longer works because of a conflict with the tool developer. Checklinks kind of works as long as it doesn't call any routines in Reflinks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Log update[edit]

Right now, the chart only goes up to the middle of 2012. I think it's time to update it? Thoughts, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessing the credits dumped seiyuu[edit]

How should seiyuu articles that are 90% filmographies be assessed? Assuming the filmography has been sufficiently scrubbed for reliable sources, and that the lead paragraph describes the actor's roles with sourcing, is that good enough to make Start class? According to our assessment table, "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." AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally I would leave them as stubs. Having sources to describe why the topic is significant is something I would expect of a "good" stub to start with. With most voice actors in this field I don't think we have enough information to make them much more than a stub when compared to other types of article. Do you have any good examples of articles that would be upgraded in this way? SephyTheThird (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with leaving them as good stubs. Chinami Nishimura would be an example; a few editors have wanted to change this to Start class since her filmography has now been sufficiently sourced and organized. But I would agree with Allen4names that it's the prose in the biography section that would be what pushes it out of stub. Then there's Colleen Clinkenbeard where at least a biography was attempted. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I would be happy with either of them as start. Having proper formatted lists that are sourced elevate them above a stub. Clinkenbeard I would say is definitely a start. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)