Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Animation! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Animation related 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 ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the WikiProject Animation project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of and, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

 * 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 Animation to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
 * 3. Someone put a WikiProject Animation 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 project talk page (or directly with the person who tagged the article).
 * 4. Who can assess articles? : Any member of WikiProject Animation 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; this is documented in the assessment scale.
 * 6. Where can I get more comments about my article? : The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
 * 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. 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; this is documented in the assessment scale.
 * 9. Aren't the ratings subjective? : Yes, they are somewhat subjective (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
 * 10. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? : A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.
 * 11. What if I have a question not listed here? : If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Quality scale
The scale for assessments is defined at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

These criteria apply to general-content articles. The style guide provides additional sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.

Each animation-related article has its assessment included within the WikiProject Animation template, such as. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Animation articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

Importance scale
The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of Animation.

''Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.''

Requesting an assessment
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. Please note that an importance rating may not be given in some cases if the reviewer is unfamiliar with the subject.

If you assess an article, please strike it off using Strike-through text so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Thanks!

Submit new requests here:


 * 1) Flipnote Studio 3D is an animation software for the 3DS and I think it falls under the scope of this project, since the predecessor Flipnote Studio does. I'd like to request that somebody add the article to this project and assesses it. Thanks, -Sforzando (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) M. Wartella page recently updated with more animation info, but needs help from someone who knows formatting and stylistic editing. This article might be appropriate for inclusion in this project.


 * Dee Bradley Baker is ready for B-class criteria assessment and more feedback on what can be improved. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Dragon Tales should be assessed against the criteria for C-class and possibly B-class. ProfessorTofty (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Animal Crackers (2016 film) requesting assessment. - Excelsior16 (talk) 13.41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Bubble and Squeek requesting an assessment Do the Danse Macabre! (Talk) 20:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Lionel Wilson (voice actor) has been beefed up since the 4 February 2011 assessment as Stub-class and may now qualify one or two classes higher. JSaltzer (talk) 17:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * El Apóstol is ready to be re-assessed. Lazman321 (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ghost Messenger has been edited a lot past two years and is ready for reassessment. Some comments on how to improve the article would be useful, too. Ppg409 (talk) 5:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Raggedy Ann & Andy: A Musical Adventure needs to be reassessed. Over time, it has been expanded and largely improved by me. It will either be B or C-class, to be honest. The only things that will need to be improved are sources and some information that needs to be added with a reliable source, including the cult following of the film from the internet if necessary. Otherwise, it should be reassessed as soon as possible. Aubreeprincess (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Past assessments are located here. If you delete a striked-through article from the list, please remember to put it in the archive.

Incorrectly assessed pages
Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Animation articles list pages which have been incorrectly assessed. Reasons for this include:
 * Invalid combination of review status and assessment class
 * Link to a portal subpage that doesn't exist
 * Assessed as NA-importance when the page is in the article namespace
 * Pages should be rated as NA for importance
 * Assessed as having an importance when the page is not in the article namespace

Log
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available; due to its size (ca 100 kB), it cannot be transcluded directly.

Popular pages
Popular pages: List of top articles with the most frequent views, updated monthly.