Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Comedy! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Comedy 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 Comedy project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Comedy articles by quality and Category:Comedy articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

 * How can I get my article rated? : Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * Who can assess articles? : Any member of the Comedy WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * Aren't the ratings subjective? : Yes, they are, 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!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

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

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 Comedy.

''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) Mike Nichols- partially expanded and rewritten.--206.188.55.235 (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Mel Brooks - partially expanded and rewritten.--66.212.78.220 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Georges Méliès - needs assessment.--206.188.36.84 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Stanley Donen - needs assessment.--206.188.36.84 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Paul F. Tompkins - expanded and re-written. --Marchije•speak/peek 22:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Comedy Bang Bang (TV series) - New article. Ænea ♫ ♪ 16:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Coach Ernie Pantusso Nick1372 (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Kitty Flanagan- substantially expanded and verifiable references added. KittyLover (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Phyllis Diller - expanded, reorganized, citations and importance as groundbreaking comic added. --Utilizer (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Lenny Schultz - requesting assessment.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:57, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) 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) 21:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 12) Artie Lange — Needs reassessment. Thank you! LowSelfEstidle (talk) 08:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 13) The Firesign Theatre  — Needs reassessment. Vastly expanded and improved by User:JustinTime55. Needs a look. Thank you!
 * 14) Armpit fart - Elaborated a little bit --D0nk m3m3s (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 15) Comedy music - Significantly expanded and is currently needing reassessment. Thank you. AnggotheManggo (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 16) 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, as I believe it is now above Start-Class status. 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) 07:18, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 17) # Tommy Trinder expanded and rewritten. Humbledaisy (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC).

Quality log

 * The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.