Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound production/Assessment

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.

FAQ

 * 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.

Log
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.

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

Importance assessment
Should we do importance assessments? -Fadookie Talk 02:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

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)