Pro. sound production WikiProject

General information Main Project page talk Policy talk Tasks To do list talk Article requests talk Article assessments talk 0 expert attention requests talk Tools/Info Articles talk Templates Article talk page talk Invite user talk Article Statistics Popular pages Professional sound production articles by quality and importance Quality Importance Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total FA 1 1 FL 1 1 GA 3 3 9 15 B 7 20 36 14 3 80 C 26 71 168 133 6 404 Start 5 41 250 473 80 849 Stub 1 19 331 101 452 List 7 15 3 25 Category 441 441 Template 22 22 NA 5 18 27 70 120 Assessed 38 142 502 1,002 533 193 2,410 Unassessed 1 1 1 23 26 Total 39 142 503 1,003 533 216 2,436 WikiWork factors (?) ω = 8,843 Ω = 4.91 view full worklist edit · changes

Welcome to the assessment department of the Professional sound production WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's professional sound production 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 assessment is done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the ((WikiProject Professional sound production)) project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Professional sound production articles by quality, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

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 Professional sound production)) to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

3. Someone put a ((WikiProject Professional sound production)) template on an article, but it doesn't seem to be within the project's scope. What should I do?

Because of the 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 the Professional sound production WikiProject 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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.

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?

Peer review can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.

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. Please note that some of the available levels have an associated formal review process that must be followed; this is documented in the assessment instructions.

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.

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the ((WikiProject Professional sound production)) project banner on its talk page:

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 Professional sound production articles)		FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Professional sound production articles)		A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Professional sound production articles)		GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Professional sound production articles)		B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Professional sound production articles)		C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Professional sound production articles)		Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Professional sound production articles)		Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Professional sound production articles)		FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Professional sound production articles)		List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Quality scale

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. It is: 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; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: 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. 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. 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.[under discussion]	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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (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. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (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. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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 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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 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 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. 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. 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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. 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

Professional sound production articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA			1				1
FL		1					1
GA		3	3	9			15
B	7	20	36	14		3	80
C	26	71	168	133		6	404
Start	5	41	250	473		80	849
Stub		1	19	331		101	452
List			7	15		3	25
Category					441		441
Template					22		22
NA		5	18	27	70		120
Assessed	38	142	502	1,002	533	193	2,410
Unassessed	1		1	1		23	26
Total	39	142	503	1,003	533	216	2,436
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 8,843			Ω = 4.91

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

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 the peer review process instead.

Current requests

For a list of current assessment requests, see Category:Professional sound production articles for new assessment.

Resolved requests

• Bill Putnam was recently expanded. Request re-assessment. synthfiend (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC) C rating. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Record One has never been rated. Was previously a redirect page, but recently converted to new article. synthfiend (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC) B rating. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Replay Gain has never been rated and has been recently improved. --Kvng (talk) 22:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Was given a C rating at some point and this seems reasonable. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• ITU-R 468 noise weighting still has a few issues, but looks like it has come a long way since it was assessed as "Start" status 3 years ago, it's probably due for a re-assessment. I don't know enough about the topic to assess it myself. Cecilkorik (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It currently has a C rating and this seems appropriate. ~Kvng (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Shure Incorporated has been significantly expanded and overhauled. I'm the one who did the work on it, so I'd prefer someone who is more objective re-assess it please. synthfiend (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I've reviewed it and made some improvements. It was already B-rated. You need to go to WP:GA to go beyond that. One criticism is that many products are listed in detail. I'm not convinced all of that is notable. --Kvng (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we do importance assessments? -Fadookie ^Talk 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Importance assessments would be good. We will need to outline them first though, since we'll have different editors with different perceptions of importance due to their varying background (live sound, sound recording, film, theatre, radio etc.) We can start with the basics, e.g. technology, equipment and professions are of top importance, companies and famous studios are of lesser importance etc. --Davidkazuhiro 13:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]