Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
A-class?
[edit]The assessment article has an entry A-class, which is used on some other wikiprojects. Are there plans to add that here? -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- A class require 2 reviewers from the project who are willing to review at FA/FL levels. It'd be more efficient to focus for GA or to make the leap to FA/FL. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Current Status Error
[edit]The current status tool is throwing an error when I click on any of the links.
- The toolslab expired. Can't be helped as far as I know. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's now back up, as is the bot report for importance/quality changes (although most recent report is 10 days old, but it should catch up soon). SephyTheThird (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Not sure how it stands now that Reflinks no longer works because of a conflict with the tool developer. Checklinks kind of works as long as it doesn't call any routines in Reflinks. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Log update
[edit]Right now, the chart only goes up to the middle of 2012. I think it's time to update it? Thoughts, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Assessing the credits dumped seiyuu
[edit]How should seiyuu articles that are 90% filmographies be assessed? Assuming the filmography has been sufficiently scrubbed for reliable sources, and that the lead paragraph describes the actor's roles with sourcing, is that good enough to make Start class? According to our assessment table, "The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
- Personally I would leave them as stubs. Having sources to describe why the topic is significant is something I would expect of a "good" stub to start with. With most voice actors in this field I don't think we have enough information to make them much more than a stub when compared to other types of article. Do you have any good examples of articles that would be upgraded in this way? SephyTheThird (talk) 10:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with leaving them as good stubs. Chinami Nishimura would be an example; a few editors have wanted to change this to Start class since her filmography has now been sufficiently sourced and organized. But I would agree with Allen4names that it's the prose in the biography section that would be what pushes it out of stub. Then there's Colleen Clinkenbeard where at least a biography was attempted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would be happy with either of them as start. Having proper formatted lists that are sourced elevate them above a stub. Clinkenbeard I would say is definitely a start. SephyTheThird (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'm fine with leaving them as good stubs. Chinami Nishimura would be an example; a few editors have wanted to change this to Start class since her filmography has now been sufficiently sourced and organized. But I would agree with Allen4names that it's the prose in the biography section that would be what pushes it out of stub. Then there's Colleen Clinkenbeard where at least a biography was attempted. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Internet polls
[edit]Hello, I think Internet polls are very susceptible to manipulation and should not be mentioned at all. Social media/MAL etc are very unreliable and should not be mentioned the same as audience rating is handled on movies. Should they always be removed?WillsEdtior777 (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)