Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy/Assessment

    Add links
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Main pageAssessmentParticipantsArticlesDiscussionPortal
    Comedy articles by quality and importance
    Quality Importance
    Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
    FA 2 9 21 63 95
    FL 1 37 28 66
    A 1 1
    GA 8 44 91 575 62 780
    B 27 87 166 244 3 48 575
    C 30 118 352 1,182 2 406 2,090
    Start 16 103 382 3,819 20 1,459 5,799
    Stub 1 13 66 1,391 17 642 2,130
    List 3 12 150 436 30 200 831
    Category 3 3,126 3,129
    File 21 116 137
    Portal 3 3
    Project 2 21 23
    Template 1 5 3 249 258
    NA 1 3 34 1,380 3 1,421
    Other 31 166 197
    Assessed 88 388 1,273 7,833 5,133 2,820 17,535
    Unassessed 2 4 1,549 1,555
    Total 88 388 1,275 7,837 5,133 4,369 19,090
    WikiWork factors (?) ω = 53,428 Ω = 4.66
    Shortcut

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

    Frequently asked questions[edit]

    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 Comedy 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[edit]

    Quality assessment[edit]

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

    {{WikiProject Comedy|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 Comedy articles)  FA
    A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Comedy articles)  A
    GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Comedy articles)  GA
    B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Comedy articles) B
    C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Comedy articles) C
    Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Comedy articles) Start
    Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Comedy articles) Stub
    FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Comedy articles)  FL
    List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Comedy 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 Comedy articles) Category
    Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Comedy articles) Draft
    File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Comedy articles) File
    Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Comedy articles) Portal
    Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Comedy articles) Project
    Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Comedy articles) Template
    NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Comedy articles) NA
    ??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Comedy articles) ???

    Quality scale[edit]

    The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

    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.

    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.
    		 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 Simpsons
     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:
    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 30 Rock episodes
     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. N/A
     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:
    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. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
      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 (but not equaling) 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. Calvin and Hobbes
    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
    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 an A-Class 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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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.
    6. 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. 2010 Tonight Show conflict
    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. 2DTV
    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. Comedy Death-Ray
    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 Frasier 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:Comedy
    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:SMirC-laugh.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:Comedy
    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 Comedy
    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 comedian
    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[edit]

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

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

    Importance scale[edit]

    The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Comedy.

    Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

    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. Comedy
     High Subject is extremely notable, but has not achieved international notability, or is only notable within a particular continent. Discworld
     Mid Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area. Encyclopedia Dramatica
     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. Hank Azaria
     NA Subject importance is not applicable. Generally applies to non-article pages such as redirects, categories, templates, etc. Category:Comedy
     ??? Subject importance has not yet been assessed. Bob Alper

    Requesting an assessment[edit]

    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 note that an importance rating may not be given in some cases if the reviewer is unfamiliar with the subject.

    If you assess an article, please strike it off using <s>Strike-through text</s> so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

    Submit new requests here:

    1. Mike Nichols- partially expanded and rewritten.--206.188.55.235 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2. Mel Brooks - partially expanded and rewritten.--66.212.78.220 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3. Georges Méliès - needs assessment.--206.188.36.84 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    4. Stanley Donen - needs assessment.--206.188.36.84 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    5. Paul F. Tompkins - expanded and re-written. --Marchije•speak/peek 22:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    6. Comedy Bang Bang (TV series) - New article. Ænea ♫ ♪ 16:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    7. Coach Ernie Pantusso Nick1372 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    8. Kitty Flanagan- substantially expanded and verifiable references added. KittyLover (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    9. Phyllis Diller - expanded, reorganized, citations and importance as groundbreaking comic added. --Utilizer (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    10. Lenny Schultz - requesting assessment.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    11. The Jeffersons - Article is rated as high importance for this project. I spent the last couple of days finding and adding a ton of references and doing some other cleanup. Should be above start class now. Funcrunch (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    12. Artie Lange — Needs reassessment. Thank you! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    13. The Firesign Theatre — Needs reassessment. Vastly expanded and improved by User:JustinTime55. Needs a look. Thank you!
    14. Armpit fart - Elaborated a little bit --D0nk m3m3s (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    15. Comedy music - Significantly expanded and is currently needing reassessment. Thank you. AnggotheManggo (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    16. Puppetry of the Penis - Hello! I have improved this article by adding over 2000 words, media, an infobox and references for my university assignment. It would be very helpful if this article could be re-assessed, as I believe it is now above Start-Class status. There is also a banner at the top of the article from 2012 requesting a need for additional citations, and I was hoping this could be reviewed. I have since added over 30 new references to the article to improve verifiability and credibility. Thank you very much. Rubyredgirl (talk) 07:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    17. # Tommy Trinder expanded and rewritten. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]

    Quality log[edit]

    Comedy articles:
    Index · Statistics · Log
    The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

    June 10, 2023[edit]

    Renamed[edit]

    Reassessed[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    Removed[edit]

    June 9, 2023[edit]

    Renamed[edit]

    Reassessed[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    Removed[edit]

    June 8, 2023[edit]

    Reassessed[edit]

    • One Foot in the Grave (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from GA-Class to Unassessed-Class. (rev · t)
    • Paul McDermott (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from GA-Class to Unassessed-Class. (rev · t)
    • Screen Junkies (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

    Assessed[edit]

    Removed[edit]

    June 7, 2023[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    Removed[edit]

    June 6, 2023[edit]

    Reassessed[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    Removed[edit]

    June 5, 2023[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    June 4, 2023[edit]

    Reassessed[edit]

    Assessed[edit]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comedy/Assessment&oldid=1070496280"