Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Assessment

Assessors?

Is anyone working on the assessment requests? It doesn't seem like anyone has even looked at these for months! Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 10:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not really. For the last year+, I've been one of the only ones doing any of them at all. User:Opark 77 was the only other one who really seemed to bother as well, but he stopped in November 07. Alas, the TV project is really in need of some revitalization. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little late to the game, but I have been going through some assessments. I've been sticking primarily to episodes and lists, though, to get my feet wet. Any help or advice is appreciated. Jrh7925 (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also am a little late, but still interested in helping write up TV eps - is there some organization to this? Is there a "to-do" list centralized? Looking to help. Conkorde1 (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the episode summaries here - for Series 4 in particular - are poorly written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.218.175 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed all that was listed. I just now joined WP:TV. — Wylie pedia 01:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even anyone assessing?

Because there are articles still waiting since... 2010. --Niemti (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assessed all that was listed. I just now joined WP:TV. — Wylie pedia 01:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs and sources

Hello, I've asked this question a few places but have yet to get definitive feedback. Any guidance is appreciated.

I'm looking for clarification on stub articles vs. non-stub articles and the requirement of sources. Can an article without any reliable sources be considered anything but stub class? (Start or above)? The reason I believe they need at least one source is that the Start class description states "article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide sources to establish verifiability." (I see the assessment guidelines here have added the work "enough" sources). I have been told by another editor that start class articles don't need sources, and I am confused. Where does it say this, and if this is the case, should the assessment scale for start be changed accordingly to be a little more clear?

I've asked at WP:STUB, Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment and the wikiproject I've been working on, WP:SOAPS, but haven't gotten a lot of feedback and am looking to find the definite answer. Thanks for your help. Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Stubs" are those which have a very basic description of the topic, usually only one or a few sentences of text but is capable of expansion. "Starts" are developing, but still quite incomplete and, most notably, lack adequate reliable sources. As with any sized article, adequate verifiable sourcing is required. This can mean the difference between the higher C, B, and A grades. For more detailed criteria, click on the "Show" button for each grade at WP:ASSESS. Hope this helps. If you have any questions about certain articles, feel free to ask at my talk page. — Wylie pedia 01:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assessment for The Voice of the Philippines

Request for assessment for The Voice of the Philippines and The Voice of the Philippines (season 1). Thanks!--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 17:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main article was assessed on September 29, 2013. I assessed the season article as a List, because that is what seasonal articles are. In future, please list requests on the Assessment article page. Thank you. — Wylie pedia 11:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roku

@Serialjoepsycho: Assessed as C class, Low importance. It's well-written and organized but it needs more references, period. I kept it at Low importance because it's not really notable at all outside the field of television. Nick1372 (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The reason I was asking about importance was because of the mid-level importance of a similiar device apple tv. Thanks. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: I would say that Apple TV is more notable than Roku because Apple TV is a household name, while Roku isn't. That's just my reasoning. Nick1372 (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick1372: Apple TV isn't a household name but Apple is. Sales figures between the devices are relatively close. 13 million vs 8 million. I don't know if Rokus numbers take into account Licensed device's like the Now TV Box. Roku doesn't have the status of Apple but the Roku Digital video players do have the status of Apple TV is all that I am suggesting. Anyway thanks.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Serialjoepsycho: We obviously just disagree here, so why don't we just leave it as is and move on. The difference between Mid and Low is pretty miniscule anyway and affects nothing. Nick1372 (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick1372:My apologies. I'm not actually arguing with you. I was just making clear my logic for asking for a change. I was only assisting in this endeavour. Although I must now say that I split The Roku player from they roku article. I did a little clean up but it's certainly not done yet. But you may wish to reaassess it again and perhaps also assess Roku Streaming Player.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for article reassessment.

Hello! I am wondering if one of your project's assessors would be kind enough to do a reassessment on the article Bing_(TV_series) please. It was initially marked as a stub within the article itself; I have just been back to the article and made at least one major addition to it and, whilst doing so, I have removed the stub template from the page.

It is sufficiently detailed enough to no longer be considered a stub to the encyclopedia, but I am not prepared to edit your project's template on the talk page, since I am not part of your project and do not know your assessment guidelines. Your help in passing a second pair of eyes over this article would be warmly appreciated! Thank you. What does the Fish say? | Woof! 11:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was made a C with this edit. — Wylie pedia 08:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey Suggestion Comment

I was wondering if someone can re-evaluate the Quality and Importance of Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey. I just looked at other B quality shows and many seem less complete than this page. Regarding importance I am unclear on the criteria, but as a documentary series this sequel to the original Cosmos seems better than Low importance.RobP (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Popular pages

Greetings, For Television wikiproject statistics, I added a link to "Popular pages", a bot-generated list of pageviews, useful for focused cleanup of frequently viewed articles. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 21 (American season)

(Moved from Requesting an assessment by Bilorv at 11:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC).)[reply]

Big Brother 21 (American season) – This season is over and the only work that needs to be done on it to make it "complete" is to update the Same Day+7 viewers and Canadian viewers. Should be upgraded from Start. Jayab314 00:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jayab314: C class! — Bilorv (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bilorv: Thanks! Do you have any advice to help get it to B class? Jayab314 22:55, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Jayab314: Yes, mostly the same as many of my comments above. With this article in particular, I found the "Controversies and criticisms" of this article to be incredibly excessive in detail, and a "Reception" section covering both positive and negative coverage is needed. See WP:CSECTION. Additionally, the "Format", "HouseGuests", "Episodes" and "Voting history" might all seem sensible ideas individually, but together they form a collection of indiscriminate information about the show which is way overboard. While Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction may not literally apply depending on your interpretation of whether reality television is fiction or fact, its gist applies to any article about television: the majority focus should be on the real-world context surrounding the show and its reception and impact, not the minutiae of the broadcast and livestream footage. The "Production" and "Viewing figures" sections go partway towards this, but the balance is too heavy on the "summary-only description of works" side.
      As I've alluded to before, almost no reality television articles on Wikipedia actually conform to our MOS and so it's hard to point to one as a model example—even those articles rated "Good Article" or higher were promoted at a time when standards were not what they are today. The best article I can see is one that's not fully comparable, Celebrity Big Brother (American TV series). Or perhaps Love Island (American season 1), which of course was an article you worked very thoroughly on, and which I think just narrowly squeaks into B class. Perusing other television articles rated "Good Articles" may give some inspiration. Much as the lengthy tables in reality television articles may appeal to editors or even readers (and such things are something I greatly enjoy with some of my own favourite fandoms), it's fundamentally not what Wikipedia is for. I have to say that Wikia is generally very underappreciated in these areas, as it welcomes as much indiscriminate fancruft as you can bear to write (without violating copyright law), and the already well-developed Big Brother Wiki is the place for hosting tons of tables and footage breakdown (and content can even be copied from Wikipedia when attributed correctly). — Bilorv (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Bilorv: I can definitely work on cutting down the controversies section and adding both positive and negative reception, but WikiProject Big Brother has their own structure of season articles that should be followed, which includes the HouseGuests, Episodes, and Voting history sections and how they should be structured. How much of that has merit I don't know, but I follow that first in order to keep the format between different seasons similar. I'm also not quite sure if you are calling the Episodes table or the Voting history table "the lengthy tables in reality television articles," but if it is the Episodes table, none of the episode summaries are too long according to MOS:TV#Episode listing (it states a brief summary of the plot (100–200 words) is applicable and should generally be brief but complete, including spoilers). Also in WikiProject Big Brother's structure, there is a list of what specific events should be included, which is followed in the entire Episode section.
        Either way, I definitely want to make the article better and will be working on reception. Thank you for always responding quickly! Jayab314 01:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jayab314: thanks for the reply. (I've moved this to the talk page to avoid cluttering up the assessment section.) I understand about MOS:TV#Episode listing, but my point is that 200 words is excessive when you also have the other three sections of plot-only description. The WikiProject page you've linked to seems to have been written mostly in 2007 and been largely unchanged since then. Back then, I believe quality standards were lower as the priority was growing the encyclopedia rather than maintaining it. In any case, a WikiProject with only a handful of members cannot be a place to override global policy and higher-level consensus, though it can be a brilliant place to coordinate with other editors with similar passions.
        Perhaps the best move is to have a wider discussion on how much detail the reality television season articles should have. I've been reluctant to say precisely what I would keep and get rid of, because I don't want to enforce my own opinion whether another editor might disagree, but I would be interested in participating in a discussion to set a new standard for how these articles should work. It's not obvious to me where best to have the discussion, but I'd suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television as a start. If we can get a wide consensus that the level of detail in these articles at present is in fact the right level, then I can start rating some of the articles you've submitted here as B class, but if we get wide consensus that the detail is excessive then steps should be taken to rewrite Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Structure of series or season articles. My worry is that 2007 precedent is not a sufficient basis for our 2019 article quality scheme. — Bilorv (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        @Bilorv: Before we start the discussion, I want to clarify if this change would be for all reality TV articles or just Big Brother articles because all reality TV shows have their own format and own way of doing things, hence why we don’t already have a WikiProject for specifically Reality Television. Jayab314 13:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        Whatever scope you want. Just Big Brother articles would make sense if our aim is to work out whether to use, abandon or rewrite Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Structure of series or season articles. — Bilorv (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Big Brother season article format on whether we should use, abandon, or rewrite Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Brother/Structure of series or season articles. Jayab314 16:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]