Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Main pageAssessmentHelpParticipantsCoordinatorsSpotlightOutreachResourcesPortalRecognized content
WikiProject Film
General information (
)
Main project page + talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines
talk
→ Multimedia talk
→ Naming conventions talk
→ Copy-editing essentials talk
Notability guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
→ Article alerts
→
Cleanup listing
→ New articles talk
→ Nominations for deletion
talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests talk
Spotlight talk
Film portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Project organization
Coordinators talk
Participants talk
Project banner talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization talk
Core talk
Outreach talk
Resources talk
Review talk
Spotlight talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop talk
Task forces
General topics
Film awards talk
Film festivals talk
Film finance talk
Filmmaking talk
Silent films talk
Genre
Animated films
talk
Christian films talk
Comic book films talk
Documentary films talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe talk
Skydance Media talk
War films
talk
Avant-garde and experimental films talk
National and regional
American cinema talk
Argentine cinema talk
Australian cinema talk
Baltic cinema talk
British cinema talk
Canadian cinema talk
Chinese cinema talk
French cinema talk
German cinema talk
Indian cinema talk
Italian cinema talk
Japanese cinema talk
Korean cinema talk
Mexican cinema talk
New Zealand cinema talk
Nordic cinema talk
Pakistani cinema talk
Persian cinema talk
Southeast Asian cinema talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema talk
Spanish cinema talk
Uruguayan cinema talk
Venezuelan cinema talk
Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
plot cleanup
stub
userbox
Shortcuts

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Film! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Film 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 Film}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Film articles by quality, 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 Film WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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.

Instructions

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/Summary. (edit | history)

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Film}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Film|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class film articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class film articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class film articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class film articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class film articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class film articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class film articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class film articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class film articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class film articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class film articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class film articles) Draft
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class film articles)  FM
File (for
timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class film articles
) 		File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class film articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class film articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class film articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class film articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class film articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed film articles) ???

Core articles

In lieu of a moribund importance rating, the project has deprecated the importance parameter in favor of a targeted drive towards "

the Core department
of this WikiProject.

Film grading scheme

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Assessment/Grading scheme. (edit | history)
WikiProject Film article progress grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 Professional, outstanding, and thorough; a definitive source for encyclopedic information. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. The Dark Knight
(as of January 2023)
 GA The article has attained good article status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article criteria:

A good article is:

  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the
      list incorporation
      .
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with
      the layout style guideline
      ;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as
    audio
    :
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are
      relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions
      .
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. Enola Holmes (film)
(as of December 2022)
B The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the
five B-Class criteria
:
  1. The article is
    suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web
    }} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for a good article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
 Readers are not left wanting, although the content may not be complete enough to satisfy a serious student or researcher. A few aspects of content and style need to be addressed, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Julieta (film)
(as of July 2016)
C The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as
in-universe perspective
.
 Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study. Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and address cleanup issues. Joy (film)
(as of July 2016)
Start An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and
speedily deleted
.
 Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. Life Partners
(as of July 2016)
Stub A very basic description of the topic.
More detailed criteria
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.
 Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The Star (2002 film)
(as of July 2016)
 FL The article has attained featured list status.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging
    lead
    that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
    • (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.
    • (b) statements are
      four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations
      .
    • (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for
      content-forking guideline
      , does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
    • (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting,
      colour
      ; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked.
    • (b) Media files. It has
      are labeled accordingly
      .
    • (c) Accessibility. It
      alternative (alt) text
      .
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing
    edit wars
    and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 Professional standard; it comprehensively covers the defined scope, usually providing a complete set of items, and has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about those items. No further content additions should be necessary unless new information becomes available. List of highest-grossing films
(as of January 2023)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, which is an article that contains primarily a list, usually consisting of links to articles in a particular subject area. There is no set format for a list, but its organization should be logical and useful to the reader. Lists should be lists of live links to Wikipedia articles, appropriately named and organized. List of 2015 box office number-one films in the United States
(as of July 2016)
SIA Meets the criteria of a set index article, which is a list article about a set of items of a specific type that share the same (or similar) name. A set index article is not a disambiguation page. Meant for information as well as navigation; should have a clear layout which is easy to follow. A set index article should follow the same style guidelines for a stand-alone list, and can be tagged with {{set index article}}. Film adaptations of Crime and Punishment
(as of November 2015)

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. (Note that this is not required; any editor may assess or re-assess an article on their own, if acting in good faith.)

If you assess an article, please strike it off so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Comments are not mandatory and any should be left at the article's talk page; the list below will be wiped periodically.

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please list it for

peer review
instead.

New requests

  • America 3000: I'm a student editor and selected this page as my main project. I've made extensive revisions to the article. Prior to my work the article was considered a Stub. I believe it is now at minimum a 'start', if not 'C Class' criteria. WillKBeatty (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • C-class indeed. Your work is appreciated. — Bilorv (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LuckyChap Entertainment I have added a considerable amount of information to this article, creating new sections and adding important detailed information, backed up with plenty of citations, so I don't think it should be rated as a stub class article anymore... Thanks! --Tasrockstar (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Waiting City - Hello! I've added various new sections to this stub article and would love if someone could take a look at it to revise its assessment rating. When I first started editing, it was a Stub-class article but I believe it could now be classified under a new assessment rating. I have added new sections and included many citations throughout it as well. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the article's talk page too. Thank you! Kaexkae (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inauguration of the CommonwealthHello! I've made considerable edits to this page and believe it at minimum meets a start class criteria. Cheers! Deathbydecaf (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made in China (2009 film) Hi, I'm a uni student that is expanding on this article for a class. It is currently considered a stub and I would greatly appreciate a rating assessment or just any feedback regarding my edits. Thank you! Dirkymumu (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Herostratus (film) The article is currently listed as a stub class article and the original article had very little information as the film is quite old. I have updated it with significantly more sources and information regarding the film's production, reception, and the themes. Any review or advice for improving it further would be appreciated, but as is I think it should be beyond a stub class article. DoingItForTheCredit (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The King (2017 American film) Hi there- my article has been rated as a 'C class' article but is currently under review for 'B Class' status. I was wondering if someone could please review it for me. Thank you so much! Husseyp (talk) 06:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghost Messenger has been edited a lot past two years and is ready for reassessment. Ppg409 (talk) 5:59, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oyster Farmer appears to be suitable for upgrading from a stub.Michaelwallace22 (talk) 00:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roadrunner: A Film About Anthony Bourdain - I expanded the article a bit; it's currently ranked at Start-class, but I believe it could be C-class. Isi96 (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Isi96: I've left this at start-class because of the lack of sufficient summary and the massive coverage imbalance. It reads more like a "Controversy of Roadrunner" article but missing enough detail about the background of the film even for that focus. Kingsif (talk) 20:14, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saekano the Movie: Finale - Expanded the said movie article. Currently at "Start" rating, and I would like to know if it can get a new rating. Thank you! Centcom08 (talk) 10:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magnolia Pictures appears to be suitable for upgrading from a stub.Michaelwallace22 (talk) 7:43, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Back to the Future soundtracks, currently at Start-class, but I have added significantly more content since. Theknine2 (talk) 16:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • A Certain Magical Index: The Movie – The Miracle of Endymion - Expanded this movie. Can it get a new rating from its current "Start"? Centcom08 (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shershaah, currently listed as Start Class. The article is a magnet for disruption and vandalism these days; I am listing it as of this permalink 2405:201:4013:80F1:8C80:A00F:E9B2:6937 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fagin currently at start class. I added way more citation. Im asking for a grade so I know how much more i need to work on this article to get it to good status Kaleeb18 (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Last Man (2002 film) currently listed as Stub Class, would like to have this rated for the Project. I, of course, think I did a sparkling job on it, but fresh eyes may deem otherwise. Thanks in advance for your consideration.  — Myk Streja (beep) 03:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Windsor International Film Festival - Currently out of date, and is severely needed of change. A major, impactful organization and event for the City of Windsor, Ontario, and within the film and film festival industry.
  • My Life as a Dog - Expanded article, including lead, release, and sequel sections. Would appreciate a new rating or feedback! Spectrallights (talk) 16:17, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Not Stupid the current plot is outdated in format. There was a new format but was reverted due to poor grammar and copyediting, but a help is appreciated for the article. Please aim to keep the new format as well as retaining the Good Article Class because it is correct and actual, but with a few cleanup. 122.11.214.200 (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Escape from Spiderhead - Expanded article, still working on it. Would appreciate a new rating or feedback, as I am aiming to work this article up to C-class or above. I added an image but I am not sure whether it is allowable under creative commons licensing? Any advice appreciated. JNEA8638 (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Make It Funky (film) - I added this new article recently and supplied a class=Start value on the talk page. But I wonder if it might qualify for a higher assessment? ORES via Rater suggests B class, but I know better than to self-assign. Thank you. NOLA1982 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • John and Julie - It is currently at stub class but has been expanded. HerbertGP36 (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sher Mountain Killings Mystery- I have expanded this stub article by 2000 words for a university assignment. Would appreciate it if it could be reviewed. Thank you. JejuToSyd (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)JejuToSyd (talk) 09:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evangeline (1914 film) - expanded the article from a stub with no sections to its current status Jon698 (talk) 00:45, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole (film) had a stub-rating, I added some information and and additional sources, however someone else should have a look if this is enough to change the status. Greetings Llydia (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Was a Spy rated as a Stub but more content has been added. HerbertGP36 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cast a Dark Shadow rated as Start but more content has been added since it was last assessed. HerbertGP36 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Khartoum (film) currently rated as Start but more content has been added since it was last assessed. HerbertGP36 (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kisapmata
    currently rated as C-class, has not yet been checked against criteria of B-Class. 08:54, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Vertigo currently rated as B-class but has seen a lot of changes since its last assessment. --Immacritic101 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Current status

Overall project

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality statistics. (edit | history)
Film pages by quality
Quality
Total
FA 186
FL 472
A 1
GA 1,407
B 1,340
C 9,508
Start 68,441
Stub 95,885
List 12,921
Category 51,134
Disambig 351
File 105,904
Portal 19
Project 227
Redirect 8,540
Template 9,327
NA 1
Assessed 365,664
Unassessed 24
Total 365,688
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 962,386 Ω = 5.44


Statistics by task force

Film articles by task forces
Quality American cinema Argentine cinema Australian cinema Baltic cinema British cinema Canadian cinema Chinese cinema Christian films Comic book films Core list Film awards Film festivals Filmmaking
FA 114 1 3 0 26 9 3 2 5 23 0 0 2
A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GA 908 3 25 0 173 58 14 5 96 67 8 2 15
B 795 4 35 1 139 57 15 12 77 58 7 7 68
C 4,660 33 243 8 841 361 138 52 276 224 60 93 433
Start 25,451 292 1,462 57 5,087 2,247 1,787 265 632 152 563 769 1,982
Stub 29,985 1,226 1,754 184 6,241 3,459 1,919 157 176 6 501 700 1,840
FL 214 1 3 1 36 5 1 0 12 0 251 1 0
List 2,969 114 251 16 546 438 368 5 70 0 5,798 664 133
Category 5,408 69 630 46 1,267 412 165 34 243 0 770 402 8,480
Disambig 23 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 8 0 3
File 570 0 2 0 50 11 13 4 148 1 16 3 12
Portal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redirect 2,140 155 69 1 344 101 27 30 229 0 592 50 332
Template 633 19 0 9 129 60 41 4 35 0 567 34 135
NA 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
Unassessed 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 74,080 1,917 4,507 324 14,886 7,224 4,486 573 2,076 531 9,143 2,728 13,444
Quality French cinema German cinema Indian cinema Italian cinema Japanese cinema Korean cinema New Zealand cinema Nordic cinema Persian cinema Southeast Asian cinema Soviet and post-Soviet cinema Spanish cinema
War films
FA 5 5 31 3 5 0 1 0 0 21 1 0 8
A 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GA 46 39 199 32 58 3 15 18 0 31 7 7 49
B 49 36 153 21 67 9 16 15 3 16 12 9 85
C 321 201 1,529 176 359 91 47 119 18 159 63 164 845
Start 2,406 1,364 14,004 1,388 2,062 921 176 814 174 1,557 900 917 2,282
Stub 5,658 5,603 10,094 5,306 2,050 767 186 2,683 378 1,263 1,959 1,356 1,415
FL 4 1 113 2 4 2 0 0 0 8 0 1 3
List 392 173 2,068 246 251 245 27 227 23 332 221 185 47
Category 476 266 945 299 373 101 65 254 44 291 220 104 470
Disambig 0 2 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 3
File 23 19 148 12 61 7 4 9 5 4 13 2 9
Portal 0 0 53 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Redirect 112 37 922 65 257 24 10 46 9 35 20 24 33
Template 98 42 355 69 88 34 3 69 13 44 39 61 26
NA 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
Unassessed 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0
Total 9,592 7,791 28,960 7,621 5,859 2,342 557 4,255 668 3,770 3,455 2,830 4,675

Assessment log

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

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Film articles by quality log

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Assessment&oldid=1215398098"