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 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.
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?
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?
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Theatre articles; should only be used for articles that have made considerable progress upon the GA version, an article that is undergoing FA review would be A-class)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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. 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.
The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much 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; 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. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.
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.
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 usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
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.
A very basic description of the topic. Can be well-written, but may also have significant content issues.
More detailed criteria
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; however, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.
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.
The overview statistics in the graphs below are always up to date.
Articles assessed for quality: 99.8% complete
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.
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]
To Do List: C Class / Top Importance articles
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]
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:
I have substantially expanded the article for play Camino Real. An assessment is much appreciated. - Artoasis (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the article on Martha Plimpton deserves an importance-assessment of "Mid" rather than "Low." The guideline for assessing an article as "Mid" is: "Use for plays or people that are very well known to regular theatregoers." As a three time Tony-nominated actress, member of Broadway's Roundabout Theatre Company and honoree of Steppenwolf Theatre's "Women in the Arts," she is very well known to regular theatregoers.
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
I have enlarged Back to Methuselah significantly from . 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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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)
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)
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]
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]
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]
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.