Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Theatre

Article Assessment

Welcome to the assessment page of the WikiProject Theatre, which focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Theatre related articles. The resulting article ratings are used within the project to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work, and are also expected to play a role in the WP:1.0 programme.
The assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Theatre}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Theatre articles by quality and Theatre articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

[edit]
See also the general assessment FAQ.
1. What is the purpose of the article ratings?
The rating system allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles. It is also utilized by the Wikipedia 1.0 program to prepare for static releases of Wikipedia content. Please note, however, that these ratings are primarily intended for the internal use of the project, and do not necessarily imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
2. How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Theatre}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
3. Someone put a {{WikiProject Theatre}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?
Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them. If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
4. Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Theatre is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Editors who are not participants in this project are also welcome to assess articles, but should defer to consensus within the project in case of procedural disputes.
5. How do I rate an article?
Check the quality scale and select the level that best matches the state of the article; then, follow the instructions below to add the rating to the project banner on the article's talk page.
6. Can I request that someone else rate an article?
Of course; to do so, please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
7. 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.
8. Where can I get more comments about an article?
People at Wikipedia:Peer Review can conduct a more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there, or ask for comments on the main project discussion page.
9. 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.
10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, 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!
11. What if I have a question not listed here?
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Theatre}} project banner on its talk page (see the template page for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Theatre | class=??? | importance=??? }}

The following values for the class parameter may be used:

Alternatively, the following classes can be used where a rating is not required:

  • Category, Disambig, Image, Portal, Project, Redirect, Template.
  • NA (for anything else)

The following values for the importance parameter may be used:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Theatre articles and articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance Theatre articles. The class and importance should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Quality scale

[edit]

The quality "class" an article receives should follow Wikipedia's regular guidelines for quality found below.

Articles which have not been formally evaluated, or which have failed a good article review, should not be assigned a quality rating higher than B class. Above that an article needs to go through a formal review process.
WikiProject content 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 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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 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. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 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. 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 (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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
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 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.
  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. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
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. Wing
(as of June 2018)
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. Ball
(as of September 2014)
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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
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 literary movements

Importance scale

[edit]
Status Meaning of Status
Top This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High This article is important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.

Use also for extremely well known and commonly-researched plays or people.

Mid This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.

Use also for plays or people that are very well known to regular theatregoers.

Low This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.

This includes most plays, biographies, theatres, etc...

Statistics

[edit]

The overview statistics in the graphs below are always up to date.


More detailed statistics are in the table below, but these are updated by a bot and may not be current. Click the numbers in the table to view a list of articles of a particular quality class and importance.

Theatre articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 2 13 11 35 61
FL 1 4 35 40
FM 223 223
GA 3 9 18 123 7 160
B 17 68 157 520 53 815
C 37 120 425 2,519 162 3,263
Start 20 109 797 9,322 397 10,645
Stub 3 29 252 6,620 236 7,140
List 1 7 230 326 19 583
Category 1 1 7,317 7,319
Disambig 59 59
File 600 600
Portal 5 5
Project 31 31
Redirect 1 1 19 153 1,524 1,698
Template 590 590
NA 5 9 14
Other 201 201
Assessed 84 358 1,914 19,658 10,559 874 33,447
Unassessed 1 45 473 519
Total 84 358 1,915 19,703 10,559 1,347 33,966
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 111,882 Ω = 5.07

To Do List: STUB / TOP Importance articles

[edit]

As of January 2, 2010, here are the articles rated of TOP importance, but of STUB class. These could benefit by some editing attention either a) to edit them and upgrade them to more complete articles or b) to revisit the assessment of importance or quality of the article: --Mdukas (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Dramatic structure (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  2. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Dramatic theory (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  3. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Endgame (play) (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  4. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Epic theatre (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  5. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Nineteenth-century theatre (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  6. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Realism (theatre) (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  7. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Sanskrit drama (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  8. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Stanislavski's system (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  9. Stub-Class Theatre articles Talk:Twentieth-century theatre (Top-importance Theatre articles)

To Do List: START class / TOP importance articles:

[edit]
  1. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Acting (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  2. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Actor (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  3. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Ancient Greek comedy (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  4. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Audience (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  5. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:August Strindberg (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  6. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Character (arts) (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  7. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Comedy (drama) (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  8. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Drama (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  9. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:English Renaissance theatre (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  10. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Expressionism (theatre) (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  11. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Farce (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  12. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:History of theatre (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  13. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Mimesis (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  14. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Naturalism (theatre) (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  15. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Noh (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  16. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Play (theatre) (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  17. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Theatre (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  18. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Tragedy (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  19. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Tragic hero (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  20. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:Vsevolod Meyerhold (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  21. Start-Class Theatre articles Talk:West End theatre (Top-importance Theatre articles)

To Do List: C Class / Top Importance articles

[edit]

As of January 2, 2010, here are the articles rated of TOP importance, but of C class. These could benefit by some editing attention either a) to edit them and upgrade them to more complete articles or b) to revisit the assessment of importance or quality of the article: --Mdukas (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. C-Class Theatre articles Talk:Aristophanes (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  2. C-Class Theatre articles Talk:Bertolt Brecht (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  3. C-Class Theatre articles Talk:Constantin Stanislavski (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  4. C-Class Theatre articles Talk:Henrik Ibsen (Top-importance Theatre articles)
  5. C-Class Theatre articles Talk:Stage (theatre) (Top-importance Theatre articles)

Requests for 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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use Wikipedia:Peer review instead.

Current requests for assessment:

  1. I have substantially expanded the article for play Camino Real. An assessment is much appreciated. - Artoasis (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have extensively revised the Jean-Gaspard Deburau page and have added pages on Charles Deburau and Paul Legrand. Can someone assess? Beebuk 11:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Old Orchard Street Theatre is a new article - only partly about its use as a theatre & I'm not sure how to assess it in this projects terms.— Rod talk 10:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've vastly expanded August Strindberg's page. I would love for someone to re-assess it. Thank you. Phaeton23 3:45, 10 February 2010
  5. I have enlarged Back to Methuselah significantly from [1]. Please estimate its rating as it now stands. I will welcome suggestions for improvement. Wugo (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (left you comments on talk page to that article --Mdukas (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  6. I have made significant additions and developments to a number of articles, especially the Physical theatre article and the Experimental theatre articles. I would love to hear anyone's view of how well this was done and where these articles could/need to go. Thanks a lot Sebbi (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've added a brief history, list of directors and some New Works to State Theatre Company of South Australia, and I would like to have it reassessed.
  8. I've expanded and properly cited most of the Alan Ayckbourn article since it got downgraded to C rating a year ago. Have I done enough to get it back up to a B? (Also, any reason why this is Mid importance? Given Ayckbourn's importance as a major playwright, I'd have thought it would be High myself.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. My students have done some good work on the Morality play page and I would very much appreciate another editor's assessment.Redcknight (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Caravan Farm Theatre: I did a major re-write of the article, which was unsourced and full of peacock language (and, in part, included cut-and-pastes from the company's website). The article needs a re-assessment. Agent 86 (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Cyrano de Bergerac (play) - I didn't edit the article, but I'm rather surprised it's classed as "low-importance", given the impact it's hard on later drama. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I've created an article about Daisy Fisher; her career as a playwright and plays she did. Assessment please HerbertGP36 (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I've expanded the article Herbert Mason's page from a stub and included his theatrical career as a stage actor at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre, Stage Manager, Stage Director and two plays he worked on with Daisy Fisher. Assessment please HerbertGP36 (talk) 23.00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  14. I've vastly expanded the article on Philip Ridley's 1991 play The Pitchfork Disney and I'd like to kindly request an assessment. I particularly believe the play is of importance as it has been cited as the play that began the in-yer-face movement in British theatre. MaskedMosquito (talk)16.25, 8th August 2015 (UTC)
  15. Jack Hulbert Assessment please HerbertGP36 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Herbert Mundin Assessment please HerbertGP36 (talk) 23:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I recently created an article on the Shakespeare Ladies Club and their influence on the popularity of Shakespeare on the London stage and would love for it to be assessed.Ladytheatrehistorian (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  18. New article on J. E. Harold Terry, an English WWI playwright - It is probably c-class and low-importance, but as I wrote the article someone else needs to assess it. EdwardUK (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  19. New-ish article on Him. It was rated start class when I put it through AfC but that feels grossly inaccurate. Samsmachado (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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, and I welcome all feedback for improvement. 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) 07:12, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add new requests above

A-Class assessment

[edit]

If you feel that an article meets the criteria listed above for A Class status, please list it below. A minimum of two uninvolved editors will review the article based on the A Class criteria and determine if the article passes or fails. In the event of a tie, the article will not be promoted to A Class. Reviewers will use the GA quick fail criteria as a screening process. Caution: this process may take several weeks.

  • Add A Class requests below
Current requests for A-Class assessment

International Playwriting Festival The Duchess of Padua

Log

[edit]

The full log of assessment changes for the past seven days is available here.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Theatre/Assessment&oldid=1171359088"