Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Assessment

Assessment

The template to use is {{Pornproject}} on the article talk page, specifically

{{Pornproject
|class =  choices are: Stub, Start, B, GA, A, FA, NA (not applicable/non-article)
|importance = choices are: Top, High, Mid, Low, NA
}}

The easiest way to do assessments is by giving yourself access to the MetaData article assessment script. There are more detailed instructions at that link, but basically:

1. Edit Special:Mypage/monobook.js and add the following lines

// User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js 
 importScript('User:Outriggr/metadatatest.js'); 
 assessmentMyTemplateCode = ["{{WPBiography|class=|importance=}}", "{{Pornproject|class=|importance=}}", "{{Film|class=|importance=}}"];
 assessmentDefaultProject = "Pornproject";
 assessmentMarkAsMinor = false;
 // 

2. Wikipedia:Bypass your cache to refresh your browser

3. Go to an article, and you will see a drop-down menu where you choose the appropriate parameters, click on the -Class and you will be brought to the article talk page where you can preview your edits, and save page to complete the assessment.

That's the basic procedure. Additional hints:

• The importance rating can be different for every project, but the quality (-Class) rating should be the same for all of them.
• If the article talk page uses {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, then add |nested=yes (manually) to the template
• If the article talk page already uses {{Pornstars}}, delete that and replace it with {{Pornproject}}, because even though they have the same effect, that makes the MetaData tool work better.

See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment for more general information about assessment; this page will covers the details specific to our project.

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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead. Please archive requests that are complete.

Please place new requests (in the format, # [[article name]] -- ~~~~ ) at the bottom of the list.

Quality scale

See Category:Pornography articles by quality.

Note that we can't give out GA or FA quality tags, there are separate Wikipedia processes for that. Also, be very sparing giving out A-Class tags; in other words, basically don't do it. So this means that there are only 3 quality tags that can be put on all but the most exceptional articles: Stub, Start, or B-Class.

Note that given the nature of this specific project, most of the interesting content in our articles is going to be at least somewhat controversial. That means that for a high quality article we need more inline citations than an article from another WikiProject on, say, European architecture, or Medieval cuisine.

Article progress grading scheme

Label	Category	Description	Examples (as of 2007-07-19)
FA {{FA-Class}}	Category:FA-Class Pornography articles	Among the best articles in the Wikipedia; among the best articles that can be written on the subject. Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles.	Jenna Jameson
A {{A-Class}}	Category:A-Class Pornography articles	We don't have the resources of Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, so can't do a separate A-class review department, but let's just be very careful in marking pages A-Class. If you don't believe this is within a few minor tweaks of passing as a Wikipedia:Featured article candidate, don't mark it A-Class. FAC reviewers are generally even tougher than you think, and some will go out of their way to be even tougher for something as controversial as pornography. An A-Class article should be comprehensive, well written, thoroughly referenced, not have any citation-needed or NPOV or similar controversial tags; basically no problems at all. Compare to our two Wikipedia:Featured articles, above; an A-Class article should look something like one of those.	(None; there's a reason for that.)
GA {{GA-Class}}	Category:GA-Class Pornography articles	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information.	Jacobson v. United States Thorough, well written, no obvious problems or gaps.
B {{B-Class}}	Category:B-Class Pornography articles	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article, even if it's not as polished. Again, compare to our two FAs -- a B-Class needs to, roughly, have more than half of that. It has at least some references for this content. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Note that many porn stars or porn films just don't have enough Wikipedia:reliable source references available to ever make it this high: it probably takes a book, or an in-depth documentary, or several long, in-depth magazine articles, or half-a-dozen average length articles, devoted to the subject, to provide enough actual content. If an article only has a few paragraphs of actual prose text besides lists of film appearances, awards, and other statistics, it's at most Start-Class, not B-Class. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.	Traci Lords - could use more text and citations for the controversial content Linda Lovelace - a lot of text, but few citations for the controversial content Playboy - a lot of content, not clearly organized, not as much actual prose as it looks Deep Throat (film) - a lot of content, needs citations
Start {{Start-Class}}	Category:Start-Class Pornography articles	Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly useful and free licensed image many useful and appropriate references or external links that help explain or illustrate the topic a subheading that fully, comprehensively treats an important element of the topic multiple less comprehensive subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't developed enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built. NOTE: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Having an article on Wikipedia is a passing grade, since it has to pass Wikipedia:Notability. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need some improvement to reach B-Class.	Stormy Daniels - not much prose, but well cited, has free image Aria Giovanni - not much prose, but well cited, has free image Jamie Gillis - a fair amount of prose, uncited, no image AVN Awards - a lot of content, uncited, not as much prose
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	Category:Stub-Class Pornography articles	Either a very short article, no more than 3-10 sentences in length, or of any length but a very rough collection of information that will need much work referencing, organizing, wikifying, trimming, and rewriting to bring it to B-Class level. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. If short, at best a brief, informed dictionary definition; if long, at best requires much effort to find useful content. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. NOTE: This is not a negative grade. There are no negative grades in Wikipedia. Having an article on Wikipedia is a passing grade, since it has to pass Notability. This grade is here to alert editors of articles that need some improvement to reach Start or B-class	New Wave Hookers - little text, no references Hot D'Or - very little prose, unorganized Jenna's American Sex Star - little prose Bianca Biaggi - little content Billy Dee - little content, uncited

Importance scale

Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment both go into great detail on Quality, but relatively little on Importance. I looked around at a few well organized projects to get an idea.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment has Top:High:Mid:Low ratios of 15:70:390:434
• Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment has Top:High:Mid:Low ratios of 160:351:639:837

We can try to maintain similar ratios. From looking at Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Pornproject it looks like we have about 500 articles in our project, so that would be 5:50:200:250. Our current articles mostly porn stars, from the very recent time that this was Wikiproject:Porn Stars, so there are other articles on glamour models, porn films, magazines, or other related topics that could be added.

As above, being extremely careful to essentially not add articles to Top-importance, leaves three importance categories.

Article importance grading scheme

Label	Category	Ratio	Criteria	Examples
Top {{Top-importance}}	Category:Top-importance Pornography articles	1-2 in 100 articles, matching Wikipedia:Key article	These articles would be on subjects famous within pornography and indisputably notable even outside pornography. In other words, they have many in depth articles, documentaries, films, or books from both mainstream and porn sources devoted to them. That would be 5 porn stars, and a few others. For the 5 porn stars, I recommend the top 5 at the AVN list: as they seem to mostly match the Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 section, where we were asked to list our most important articles. Outside porn stars, I'd add Pornography itself, History of erotic depictions as an important subarticle, Hugh Hefner as the single most famous pornographer, Playboy as the single most famous pornographic magazine, maybe a couple of others, but not more than that, limiting it at the 1-2 in 100 ratio.	Ron Jeremy, Jenna Jameson, John Holmes, Traci Lords, Linda Lovelace, Pornography, History of erotic depictions, Hugh Hefner, Playboy
High {{High-importance}}	Category:High-importance Pornography articles	1 in 10 articles.	That would probably be the rest of both the AVN list and the Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0 section, and a number of others. Subjects here would be famous within pornography, and at least somewhat known of even outside pornography.	Tera Patrick, Annabel Chong, Penthouse, Hustler, Larry Flynt, Danni Ashe.
Mid {{Mid-importance}}	Category:Mid-importance Pornography articles	4 in 10 articles	Either well known inside pornography and little known outside pornography (Stephanie Swift, Jim South), or somewhat known outside pornography but not famous in pornography (John Wayne Bobbitt, Marylin Star). As a rule of thumb, require 4 or more non-trivial articles written about them outside pornography, important pornography awards (including AVN Awards, Penthouse Pet, etc.), or combination thereof.	Stephanie Swift, Jim South, John Wayne Bobbitt, Marylin Star, Emily Sander
Low {{Low-importance}}	Category:Low-importance Pornography articles	5 in 10 articles	Not very well known inside or outside pornography. Most of the articles that barely squeaked by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion for borderline notability (won 1 award, or was Playmate of the Month, and nothing more) would be low importance.	Bianca Biaggi, Electric Blue 28, Billy Dee

Statistics

See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pornography articles by quality statistics

Pornography articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA				3			3
GA		6	12	27		1	46
B	8	44	74	50			176
C	8	88	140	193			429
Start	4	139	519	996		3	1,661
Stub		14	110	699		1	824
List		18	33	107			158
NA	3	29	86	405	878		1,401
Assessed	23	338	974	2,480	878	5	4,698
Total	23	338	974	2,480	878	5	4,698
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 15,585			Ω = 4.96

Assessment log

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pornography articles by quality log (too large to transclude)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Pornography articles by quality - automatically-updated log; do not modify directly 

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.