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.
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.
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.
well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
(a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
(c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
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.
If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please list it for peer review instead.
Assessed C-class. I was a little put off by the excessive red links, with the issue being that there's a whole section that basically relies on knowledge of these things which aren't explained and don't have an article to go away and read. The prose style is also sub-par. Enough detail for C-class. Kingsif (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In order: B, C, C. Those not meeting B-class is mostly because of either not enough or too much coverage in relation to the broadness criterion. Kingsif (talk) 12:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ashes and Diamonds (film) – The article has been recently expanded but still holds the Start-class rating. Maybe it deserves a re-assessment. Ironupiwada (talk) 19:17, 24 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Someone went ahead and tagged it as a Good Article, although it doesn't seem to have gone through GA Review. It is good quality though, it would seem to be B Class at least. -- 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
America 3000: I'm a student editor and selected this page as my main project. I've made extensive revisions to the article. Prior to my work the article was considered a Stub. I believe it is now at minimum a 'start', if not 'C Class' criteria. WillKBeatty (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LuckyChap Entertainment I have added a considerable amount of information to this article, creating new sections and adding important detailed information, backed up with plenty of citations, so I don't think it should be rated as a stub class article anymore... Thanks! --Tasrockstar (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Waiting City - Hello! I've added various new sections to this stub article and would love if someone could take a look at it to revise its assessment rating. When I first started editing, it was a Stub-class article but I believe it could now be classified under a new assessment rating. I have added new sections and included many citations throughout it as well. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the article's talk page too. Thank you! Kaexkae (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Made in China (2009 film) Hi, I'm a uni student that is expanding on this article for a class. It is currently considered a stub and I would greatly appreciate a rating assessment or just any feedback regarding my edits. Thank you! Dirkymumu (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Herostratus (film) The article is currently listed as a stub class article and the original article had very little information as the film is quite old. I have updated it with significantly more sources and information regarding the film's production, reception, and the themes. Any review or advice for improving it further would be appreciated, but as is I think it should be beyond a stub class article. DoingItForTheCredit (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The King (2017 American film) Hi there- my article has been rated as a 'C class' article but is currently under review for 'B Class' status. I was wondering if someone could please review it for me. Thank you so much! Husseyp (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Isi96: I've left this at start-class because of the lack of sufficient summary and the massive coverage imbalance. It reads more like a "Controversy of Roadrunner" article but missing enough detail about the background of the film even for that focus. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Isi96: Assessed at C-class, but the plot is too long, it's nearly 1000 words at the moment. It's also a sandwiched article: plot and reviews present, but nothing substantial in-between. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moulin Rouge! - Currently at C-class. I made extensive revisions and expanded the article with the "Analysis" section. Please assess against B-Class criteria. Thanks! Msoul13 (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fagin currently at start class. I added way more citation. Im asking for a grade so I know how much more i need to work on this article to get it to good status Kaleeb18 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Last Man (2002 film) currently listed as Stub Class, would like to have this rated for the Project. I, of course, think I did a sparkling job on it, but fresh eyes may deem otherwise. Thanks in advance for your consideration. — Myk Streja(beep) 03:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Windsor International Film Festival - Currently out of date, and is severely needed of change. A major, impactful organization and event for the City of Windsor, Ontario, and within the film and film festival industry.
I Not Stupid the current plot is outdated in format. There was a new format but was reverted due to poor grammar and copyediting, but a help is appreciated for the article. Please aim to keep the new format as well as retaining the Good Article Class because it is correct and actual, but with a few cleanup. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Escape from Spiderhead - Expanded article, still working on it. Would appreciate a new rating or feedback, as I am aiming to work this article up to C-class or above. I added an image but I am not sure whether it is allowable under creative commons licensing? Any advice appreciated. JNEA8638 (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make It Funky (film) - I added this new article recently and supplied a class=Start value on the talk page. But I wonder if it might qualify for a higher assessment? ORES via Rater suggests B class, but I know better than to self-assign. Thank you. NOLA1982 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Arcahaeoindris: Interesting subject, some minor areas that you can improve, but is all right, with some development I could see this as B-class (though C for now), many thanks!. VickKiang (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done@Mtjannetta: At minimum, it's C-class, and I assessed it as such. It could be B-class with some minimal work, most specifically some additional citations in some areas. I did not ((cn)) every instance of this, but by example, statements such as "This would be so-and-so's last appearance in a Johnson film" or "their string of successes and box-office magic had come to a close" - these type of statements need a source. But other than some minor elements like that, I think it meets most criteria for B-class. ButlerBlog (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whole (film) had a stub-rating, I added some information and and additional sources, however someone else should have a look if this is enough to change the status. Greetings Llydia (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]