Psych I'm not sure if this will make the cut for B class, if someone can give me some constructive critisism on how to make it better, I'll surely improve it.--Iankap99 (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should remain a C. Part of the problem I have with Series article is the over-abundance in the Character section. Create a Char Page and trim this down. — WylieCoyote21:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Freshwater Blue I have recently created this article and wanted to get it assessed on its quality and importance as well as feedback on how I can improve the article. Thankyou ~~DonEd (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2010~~
School!! I created the article a while back and think it is about time to get its first assessment. And can the reviewer highlight areas to improve on the talk page? Thank you! - Lionratz (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remington Steele I have re-written the bulk of the content on this page, adding online and offline citations for all facts and placing the series in the context of the evolution of television drama in the 1980s (also with citations).Jlynnreed (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
B class, Low imp. References need worked on. Bare URLs.
America's Got Talent The article has gone through significant changes, including a cleanup that removed season-specific information, and generalized the article more towards the entirety of the show and its general format. Gamer9832 (talk) 23:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I set the importance to low and assessed the article as C-class from its previous Start-class. The article still needs a bit of work to reach B. The highest priority improvements would be to grammar, sourcing, and summarizing the synopsis section. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as start-class. Once the show has a longer history, it can be expanded into a more comprehensive article. Good job so far> Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I set the importance as low. It was already assessed as Start, and I concur with that assessment. The main issue is that it does not have enough sources or citations. --Odie5533 (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This was a tough one. It's kind of in between Start-class and C-class. I gave it C, but it needs a lot more work. Try adding a production history section. The article is overpowered by distracting graphs and not enough actual paragraphs. Nick1372 (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. But would look skimpy if that episode table ever got put into an List page. Also, what happens if/when another season or five gets added? — Wyliepedia07:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, definitely needed to be reevaluated. It fits all the criteria for a B class article (Additionally, I changed the importance to Mid, as it's one of the first Netflix series & a possible Emmy contender). If you clean up that episode section a little, you will have a good candidate for a Good Article. Nick1372 (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been on for four episodes. In my opinion, it should remain a Start for a little longer. If you take out the tables, it only has 820 words at the moment. — Wyliepedia09:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as List class, Low importance. FYI, you can assess a list yourself; there's no need to come here. All lists are in List Class, so there would never be a conflict of interest. Nick1372 (talk) 05:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@WyrmVane: Assessed as Start Class. The article is well-sourced, but it's not much more than an episode list and a summary. It needs more textual content, like a production history section. Nick1372 (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I assesed the new article as C class & Low importance. Both articles are better organized than before, but the referencing problems are still there. Nick1372 (talk) 21:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Code of a Killer - Never done this before, so please could you advise me. Recently made this article for an upcoming ITV drama. If no action is able to be taken with the article, please could you explain everything on my talk page? Thanks, --Limbsaw20:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
C classes are fine. As for improving them, the plots are a bit long, but so are some other episode articles; and if possible, for the pilot, some development/production sections could be added, if available. However, most of my episode articles are like these two. — Wyliepedia10:41, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical Reception is Reviews and things like that? Right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. However I believe that if it is then that could probably be found on the episode articles...--Ditto51 (MyTalkPage) 22:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Sometimes collective reviews can be found for seasons, but this generally occurs for only the first few seasons or perhaps brief premiere/finale mentions. Not terribly important and merely a suggestion. — Wyliepedia07:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Red Skelton – Yet another Featured Article without an importance level. Also this is getting backlogged...Is there anyone who understands this who could maybe get rid of the backlog? --Ditto51 (MyTalkPage) 10:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Programadora — important concept within the context of television in Colombia, article created entirely by me from all sources in Spanish. Has no assessment from either the Television or Colombia projects despite being 3 years old. Raymie (t • c) 19:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To be honest, WPTV covers mostly television series and episodic programs, not news channels, despite being asked to participate in news deletion discussions. — Wyliepedia18:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree: This WikiProject covers television related articles. A channel is television related. CNN, Fox News, Al Jazeera English, etc all are tagged WPTV. Just looking for objective rating for the article, I'm too close to give it one. -- Whats new?(talk)04:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
B class. I cleaned up the infobox and episode table to let them breathe. The ratings box seems redundant to the prose below, but some people like that. None of that matters where assessment is concerned. Nice retooling! — Wyliepedia12:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@CAWylie: Thank you for your review and edits. I was having a lot of difficulty with cleaning up the infobox and episode table so I greatly appreciate that. I was also not certain about the ratings box either. I have added it since I noticed it on other articles about television shows, but I agree with your point that it is redundant considering the same information is in the prose. This is my first time working on an article about a television series so I am still in the process of learning it. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@IJBall: I'm two years late (exactly) but I've re-rated it C-class. There are problems with the B criteria 1 (e.g. Broadcast section) and 4 (e.g. Opening sequence is far too long). I also doubt it meets 2 as e.g. the Production section contains little detail on the show's inception or writing process. — Bilorv(c)(talk)11:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed all, season 6 too, and added other relevant WikiProject. These are just List-class, and Low-importance as "included to cover a specific part of a notable article". nyuszika7h (talk) 13:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mitch Buchannon - Over the summer I added to and revised this particular article. I would appreciate an assessment. Thanks!
Start-class. The article needs a lot more focus on real-world things (e.g. reviews of the character; writers talking about the development of the character) and a lot less detail in the plot summaries. — Bilorv(c)(talk)11:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
MTN (TV station) - Currently unrated, but WikiProject Australia has it rated as 'Start'. I believe it is currently more likely a 'C'. I requested an assessment in August by WikiProject Australia but the article is yet to be assessed, leaving me to assume the WikiProject is inactive. I have contributed largely to the article and as such cannot give an unbiased opinion. Forbesy 777 (talk) 02:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Jeffersons - Article is rated as high importance for this project. I spent the last couple of days finding and adding a ton of references and doing some other cleanup. Should be above start class now. Funcrunch (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Apprentice (TV series) - That article had once been (is currently) rated as High importance for this project. Please consider the possibility of newly elevating it to Top importance. Since more recently the 2016 US presidential election cycle did convert the show's leading on-screen cameo appearance personality (i.e. Donald Trump) into decidedly a "subject that has achieved international notability". Which is a prominent definitional characteristic of that status level. One factor in favor of weighing this proposed status elevation promtly is that... Due to the same underlying reason, that page has become a target of apparently-repeated vandalism. So the status change might lead indirectly toward making that article somehow more resistant to hackers North Alabama 000 (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would challenge the assessment that The Apprentice is "High" importance to WP:TV – I'd buy "Mid" importance, but not "High". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm re-rating as high importance: it's about a franchise broadcast in many different versions across several different continents. For the UK and US versions at least, it is a staple of reality television and its inception in 2004 means it was starting a trend, not following one. (I've also re-rated as C class.) — Bilorv(c)(talk)11:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Chad. Virtually every paragraph has a citation. I'm going to say B-class. This may have a shot at GAN if you're interested in taking it there. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Chad1m: Well what do you know...it already is listed as B-class. I guess the previous assessment was a bit too ambitious. In that case, I'd suggest going straight to WP:GAN and giving it a nomination. --Bcschneider53 (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1864 (TV series) – the article has been steadily growing for a couple of years but was still auto-rated as stub class until just now. I've done some editing to the Production and Reception sections and I think it's ready to be re-rated. Scolaire (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Currently rated as Start-class, and I'd agree with that assessment. Frankly, the article is too devoted to trivia currently, and looks like it belongs more at a Wikia than here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The entire "Game summary" section (for starters) – that's unencyclopedic trivia. It would be of interest to fans of the show at a wikia. But for a general encyclopedia like this, we just need a general show summary. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This one is arguably C-class, but I'm not going to rate it as such at this time – I'd like to see the article copyedited more and improved, to the point where the tag is removed and the article is more readable, before actually assessing it a C-class. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
San Junipero – I'd like another viewpoint on the WPTV importances. I'd go with mid-importance for WPTV and at least mid-importance for episode-coverage, but I'm biased. It's currently low importance for WPTV (unassessed for episode-coverage), but given that the episode won two Emmys and the page gets over a million hits per year, I'd say it's pretty important within its genre. — Bilorv(c)(talk)02:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lullabying: Absolutely past Start-class; I've given it a rating of B-class. I think the next step is splitting the episode table into a "List of episodes" page, as 51 is too unwieldy to remain on the main page. Then each episode should ideally get a summary. — Bilorv(c)(talk)23:31, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lullabying: yes, I recommend you split the episode summaries into a "List of episodes" page (take a look at some similar articles to see how this is done). WikiProject Television doesn't use A class ratings so the next stage would be nominating it for good article status. Look at the GA criteria to see the requirements—good articles are of very high quality so it takes quite some work to get them up to this level. — Bilorv(c)(talk)11:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Desertborn: yep, I've rated it C class. I think the only major omission is a section for critical reception—what did reviewers make of the series? Thanks for the work expanding the article! — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)23:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ominae: I've rated it C class. Some bits to work on: the lead needs expanding; critical reception could be fleshed out (some examples of specific reviewers and their comments); and there might be more details to be found relating to Production. And of course, the plot summaries will need to be added when future episodes air. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)17:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayab314: it's a stub at the moment. There's no reference section and very little mention of real-world context for the show. Adding production details, critical reviews of the show etc. would improve the article. The large amount of description added for the first two episodes is too much detail; less is more and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than a fansite. I'm afraid there's also a copyright issue with the image you added. Feel free to talk to me on my talk page if you have any questions; I'm happy to help. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)19:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@KyleJoan: I've added importances to the WikiProjects (mid for WPTV, low for WP USA). If by "reassessed", you mean that you think it is ready for Featured Article status, the process for nominating it is WP:FAC, but first-time nominators are advised to seek a mentor before they make a nomination. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)10:30, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming the comment was about whether the article was still at "WP:GA-level status". But there's a process for that (i.e. GA reassessment), separate from this one, for that too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay yeah, I did consider this. As IJBall says, WP:GAR is the formal process for removing GA statuses. Unless someone thinks there are issues with a GA serious enough for its status to be removed, the article keeps its status indefinitely. I haven't looked at the article in detail but it seems like it has maintained its excellent quality since it was listed last year so I don't think there's any threat of that. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)17:17, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for my lack of clarity. I was pointing out that the article's rating on the project's importance scale needed to be reevaluted after earning GA status, which is now achieved. Thank you very much! KyleJoantalk04:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just about fits C class criteria. There's a lot more work to be done: for instance, "Summary" contains far, far too much detail. The many tables in the article are overkill. Wikipedia articles should always have a focus on the real world and on secondary sources, so there needs to be a "Critical reception" section or a "Production" section, depending on what sources exist. It's worth noting that most of these sort of "Reality TV (series X)" articles are in very bad shape and rarely comply with Wikipedia policy, so it's not a good idea to look to them as examples. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)10:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Made in Canada – This is a GAN which I want to use for a multiple-hook DYK on July 1 (Canada Day) and would greatly appreciate if a review could be initiated. Thanks in advance. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC) GA review underway 23:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft class doesn't reflect the quality of the writing, just that the page is currently a draft and not an article. If the draft is accepted at Articles for Creation then the reviewer will give the article an assessment based on quality. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)08:47, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've rated it start class. The next step is to introduce content that focuses on real world context (e.g. critical reviews of the season). — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 13:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayab314: C class. Plenty of real-world content in the Production and Reception sections, which is good to see, but there's far too much detail about the episodes and too many tables for a B class article. (Sorry for the delay in rating.) — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 13:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits, Andremrys! I believe the article is currently C class, because it's got a substantial amount of good material. I'd say the most obvious area for improvement is the lack of a Critical reception section—what did reviewers (in Italian or British newspapers) say about the series? Other than that, there seem to be a few unsourced statements in the Production section, but the rest of the article looks excellent! — Bilorv (he/him) (talk)22:50, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Danny157: your edits are much appreciated, and definitely improve the article, but I think it's still C class. Specifically it fails the B class criteria (1) and (2). For (1), anything that isn't a description of plot should be sourced with an inline citation (e.g. the Fair City occasionally makes use of real Dublin locations paragraph). The article also cites the Daily Mail as a reference, which is not a reliable source (see WP:RSP, and it might be worth checking if the rest of the article's sources are reliable). For (2), the article is missing a section on critical reception—what have reviewers said about the programme? If these issues are tidied up, feel free to ask again or message me on my talk page and if I've got the time, I'll see if I can reassess it against the B-class criteria. — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 13:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits to the article, CrewBeat! I've rated the article Start-class, which is perhaps a bit harsh, but it will certainly meet the C class standard if episode summaries (of up to 200 words, per MOS:TVPLOT) are added to the table under the section "Episodes". The other omission of the article is a Reception section, which can list reviews made by professional reviewers and some key quotes from their reviews. I understand these are not present yet because the series was only released yesterday, so let me know if either of them is added. Thanks! — Bilorv (// W A K E U P //) 10:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen your changes and upgraded the rating to C class. Thank you for your improvements! All the important sections of the article exist, so it's in quite good shape, and now the article can be improved by adding more information from more sources. Take a look at some featured articles on similar topics to get an idea about what a (near-)perfect article would look like. — Bilorv (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Amblin Television - I've expanded this page a lot. Wondering if it could receive an upgraded assessment? Currently it's list-class Hattiedog (talk)
@Hattiedog: thank you for your edits! List articles work slightly different; their only possible assessments are "list" and "featured list", and the latter requires a formal process. But (though I was baffled for a minute) this page should be an article, not a list, as it's a page about a television company and not just a list of all the things they've produced. So I have reassessed it, and I think it's currently C class. — Bilorv (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayab314: "Controversies and criticisms" belong instead in a general "Reception" section containing all critical coverage of the season, positive or negative (... and if there is no positive coverage then say that). The section needs to be made more concise and it should be ensured that it only contains material discussed by reliable secondary sources e.g. the following text seems to be original commentary of the program: during which she exclaimed that Robinson has a "micropenis". Upon confrontation, Lantry sat between Robinson's legs who repeatedly asked her to get off of him. Additionally, the level of detail of each episode (or app feature or live feed) is excessive and needs to be trimmed. More real-life context for the program (e.g. Production details) would also be beneficial. — Bilorv (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: After the discussion and adjustments made to the article, could you reassess it? If it doesn't meet B class again, I would be happy to hear feedback on how to make it better to hopefully reach at least good article status. Jayab31422:55, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayab314: It's close, but two of my previous comments still stands: 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. Also: My issue with the controversies [now Reception] is that I think the section is currently twice as long as it should be, so however it can be halved while preserving due weight is the right move. It might be that everything can stay but a couple of controversies should only have a sentence or two and the others should be at most a paragraph in length. Or it might be that some are less important and should be removed, and the others made more concise. The controversies are still given undue weight and are not necessarily neutral either (I've removed one particularly egregious accusation here); meanwhile, if any coverage on Reception generally exists then I'd like to see it in the article. What did reviewers think of the season overall? Did they say anything about the formatting points unique to this season? Or whether the people were chosen well or games were interesting? Are the ratings going up or down? etc. — Bilorv (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: Sorry for constantly asking for reassessment, but I've been working on the Reception section over the past two days and added information about ratings and reviews from critics (although they were hard to find as normal reviewers such as Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes do not review these types of shows). I managed to get the three controversy sections down to what I think is the shortest I can possibly make them, while keeping the information that is of upmost importance. I did the same thing with the Statements from CBS section, keeping it consice but providing all the same information that the previous revisions did. Of course, any feedback to make the article better is always wanted. Thank you! Jayab31400:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
