Star (classification)

Star (classification) wiki, Star (classification) history, Star (classification) review, Star (classification) facts Star (classification) news, what is Star (classification) Star (classification) wikipedia
Star (classification) information, Star (classification) definition, Star (classification) timeline, Star (classification) location

Stars are often used as symbols for ratings. They are used by reviewers for ranking things such as films, TV shows, restaurants, and hotels. For example, a system of one to five stars is commonly employed to rate hotels, with five stars being the highest quality.


Repeated symbols used for ranking date to Mariana Starke's 1820 guidebook, which used exclamation points to indicate works of art of special value:

...I have endeavoured... to furnish Travellers with correct lists of the objects best worth notice...; at the same time marking, with one or more exclamation points (according to their merit), those works which are deemed peculiarly excellent. [16]

Murray's Handbooks for Travellers and then the Baedeker Guides (starting in 1844) borrowed this system, using stars instead of exclamation points, first for points of interest, and later for hotels.



In 1915, Edward O'Brien began editing The Best American Short Stories. This annual compiled O'Brien's personal selection of the previous year's best short stories. O'Brien was known to work indefatigably: he claimed to read as many as 8,000 stories a year, and his editions contained lengthy tabulations of stories and magazines, ranked on a scale of zero to three stars (representing O'Brien's notion of their "literary permanence.") At the end of each book, O'Brien listed all the stories published during the preceding year. O'Brien awarded no stars to those stories which failed "to survive either the test of substance or the test of form." O'Brien listed these stories without comment or a qualifying asterisk. O'Brien awarded one star to "those stories which may fairly claim to survive either the test of substance or the test of form. Each of these stories may claim to possess either distinction of technique alone, or more frequently, I am glad to say, a persuasive sense of life in them to which a reader responds with some part of his own experience." O'Brien awarded two stars to stories "of still greater distinction" that warranted a second reading "because each of them has survived both tests, the test of substance and the test of form." O'Brien awarded three stars - the highest rating - to "a small group of stories" which had "an even finer distinction—the distinction of uniting genuine substance and artistic form in a closely woven pattern with a spiritual sincerity so earnest, and a creative belief so strong, that each of these stories may fairly claim, in my opinion, a position of some permanence in our literature as a criticism of life. O'Brien further listed these stories "in a special 'Roll of Honor.'" In this special list O'Brien further attached an additional asterisk to those stories that O'Brien personally enjoyed. "Stories indicated by this asterisk seem to me not only distinctive, but so highly distinguished as to necessitate their ultimate preservation between book covers. It is from this final short list that the stories reprinted in this volume have been selected."

Oliver Herford's essay Say it with Asterisks, quips "Never, I think, were a mob of overworked employees so pitifully huddled together in an ill-ventilated factory as are the Asterisks in this Sweatshop of Twaddle." Literary editor Katrina Kenison dismisses O'Brien's grading systems as "excessive at best, fussy and arbitrary at worst."

Book reviewers generally do not use a star-rating system though there are exceptions. The West Coast Review of Books rates books on a scale of one ("poor") to five ("superior") stars. According to editor D. David Dreis, readers love the ratings but publishers don't.


In the 31 July 1928 issue of the New York Daily News, the newspaper's film critic Irene Thirer began grading movies on a scale of zero to three stars. Three stars meant 'excellent,' two 'good,' and one star meant 'mediocre.' And no stars at all 'means the picture's right bad,'" wrote Thirer. Carl Bialik speculates that this may have been the first time a film critic used a star-rating system to grade movies. [17] "The one-star review of The Port of Missing Girls launched the star system, which the newspaper promised would be 'a permanent thing.' [17]

According to film scholar Gerald Peary, few newspapers adopted this practice until the French film magazine Cahiers du cinéma "started polling critics in the 1950s and boiling their judgment down to a star rating, with a bullet reserved for movies that the magazine didn't like." [17] The highest rating any film earned was five stars. The British film magazine Sight and Sound also rated films on a scale of one to four stars. [3]

Not all film critics approved. Film scholar Robin Wood wondered if Sight and Sound readers accepted "such blackening of their characters." [16]

Several critics have complained that their own newspapers forced them to adopt the system. Jay Scott of Canada's The Globe and Mail writes, "When Globe editors first proposed the four-star system of rating movies about a year ago, the response from Globe critics was, to put it mildly, underwhelming. This critic couldn't do anything but remember rock musician Lou Reed's comment (cleaned up here for publication in a family newspaper) vis-a-vis a publication that used grades to evaluate music. 'You work a year on an album just so some (jerk) can give you a B-minus,' he said." Scott also remembered "the scene from Bob Fosse's All That Jazz in which the director-hero, in hospital after a heart attack, watches a TV critic assign balloons to indicate the value of the director-hero's latest film. We know what the director-hero has sacrificed to get the movie into theatres - everything. And we know what the critic has sacrificed to get the review on air - nothing. That's why my first reaction to the idea of introducing any sort of symbolic evaluation system - stars, balloons, numbers, letters, apples, oranges, thumbs or condoms - was to object; the star system got no stars from me."

While there is no consensus what the maximum number of stars is to denote a masterpiece, there is also no agreement on what the lowest rating is. Film critic Leonard Maltin rates films on a scale of one through four stars, although his guide notes that there is no actual "one star" rating. For these "bottom-of-the-barrel movies", Maltin's guide uses the citation "BOMB". [16] However, according to Maltin, the 1981 Bo Derek film Tarzan, the Ape Man "nearly forced the editors of this book to devise a rating lower than BOMB". Steven H. Scheuer's now defunct film guide grades films from a half-star ("abysmal") to four stars ("excellent"). [16] Despite this Scheuer's guide intentionally gives Wes Craven's film The Last House on the Left no stars making it the lowest-rated film in the book.

Critics do not agree what the cutoff is for a recommendation. Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert "both consider a three-star rating to be the cutoff for a "thumbs up". [4] Film critic Dave Kehr - who rates film from zero (a black dot) to four stars - believes "two stars is a borderline recommendation". Kehr believes "one star" indicates the film has a redeeming facets. [4]

Critics also do not agree on what the lower ratings signify, let alone the lowest rating. While Maltin's and Scheuer's guides respectively explain that lowest rated films are "BOMB(s)" and "abysmal", British film critic Leslie Halliwell instead writes that no stars - his lowest rating indicated by a blank space - "indicates a totally routine production or worse; such films may be watchable but are at least equally missable." [16] Like Halliwell and Dave Kehr, film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum believes one-star films have some merit, however unlike Halliwell, Rosenbaum believes that no stars - he uses a round black dot - indicate a "worthless" movie. [16] Scheuer's guide calls "one and a half star" films "poor", and "one star" films "bad".

Critics have different ways of denoting the lowest rating when this is a "zero". Halliwell uses a blank space. Roger Ebert uses the term "zero stars" to denote those films he feels are "inept and morally repugnant." The Globe and Mail uses a "0", or as their former film critic dubbed it, the "death doughnut". Other critics use a black dot. To avoid this some critics make either a "half-star" or "one star" their lowest rating.

Some critics use a "half-star" option in between basic star ratings. Leonard Maltin goes one further and gives Naked Gun 33⅓: The Final Insult a 2⅓ star rating.

Comedy and theatre

Star ratings are also given out at stand-up comedy performances and theatre productions. Star ratings are given at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe, the largest arts festival in the world. Since 2010, the British Comedy Guide has collected over 4,300 reviews of around 1,110 different acts, across 83 different publications in the form of a star rating. [65]

The use of star ratings is controversial because the public may ignore the reviews and concentrate more the star ratings alone. [6]

Restaurant ratings

Restaurant guides and reviewers often use stars in restaurant ratings. The Michelin system reserves stars for exceptional restaurants, and gives up to three; the vast majority of recommended restaurants have no star at all. Other guides now use up to four or five stars, with one-star being the lowest rating. The stars are sometimes replaced by symbols such as a fork or spoon. Some guides use separate scales for food, service, ambiance, and even noise level.

The Michelin system remains the best known star system. A single star denotes "a very good restaurant in its category", two stars "excellent cooking, worth a detour", and three stars, "exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey".

Michelin stars are awarded only for the quality of food and wine; the luxury level of the restaurant is rated separately, using a scale of one ("quite comfortable") to five ("luxury in the traditional style") crossed fork and spoon symbols.

Hotel ratings

Hotel luxury is often denoted by stars.

Other classifiers, such as the AAA Five Diamond Award, use diamonds instead of stars to express hotel ratings levels.

Hotels are assessed in traditional systems and rest heavily on the facilities provided. Some consider this disadvantageous to smaller hotels whose quality of accommodation could fall into one class but the lack of an item such as an elevator would prevent it from reaching a higher categorization. [18]

In recent years hotel rating systems have also been criticized by some who argue that the rating criteria for such systems are overly complex and difficult for laymen to understand. It has been suggested that the lack of a unified global system for rating hotels may also undermine the usability of such schemes.

Financial product ratings

In the UK, providers and comparison websites often use Stars to indicate how feature-rich financial products are. [5]

Defaqto is an organisation that independently assess every financial product in the UK. Each of these products is awarded a rating from 1 to 5 Stars, allowing consumers to see where it sits in the market. The higher the Star Rating, the more comprehensive a product.

Defaqto Star Ratings are calculated using a scoring system of between 40 and 100 features and benefits for each product or insurance policy, with each scored from 1 to 5. The scores for each product are totalled and all products ranked. Our industry experts determine the scores necessary to achieve 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Star Ratings. [9]

Military ranks

The most senior military ranks in all services are classified by a star system in many countries, ranging from one-star rank which typically corresponds to brigadier, brigadier general, Commodore or air commodore, to the most senior five-star ranks which include Admiral of the Fleet, Grand Admiral, Field Marshal, General of the Army and Marshal of the Air Force which typically only exist during large scale conflicts.

In the army of the Republic of Ireland, the most junior ranks are classified by stars. A three-star private / gunner / trooper is one who is considered a fully trained soldier. Two-star privates/gunners/troopers are those who have completed basic training but have not yet completed other specialised training necessary for their roles. One-star privates do not exist: the lowest rank is recruit. Senior officers are classified as Brigadiers, Majors General and Lts General.

Manufactured home park rating

There is no official star rating system for manufactured home parks because there is no rating organization. For such an organization to exist would require agreement between the owners of approximately 50,000 parks in the United States. [10]

A residual belief in such a system probably originated in a directory of mobile home parks printed in the 1970s, in which each park was assessed with a five star rating system. [11]

Association football stadiums

UEFA has a star classification scheme for association football stadiums, the UEFA elite stadium list, grading stadiums on their suitability to host major matches.

American college football

Recruits entering American college football are commonly ranked on a five-star scale, with five representing what scouts think will be the best college players.

Transport safety

International organisations use a star rating to rank the safety of transportation. EuroRAP have developed a Road Protection Score which is a scale for Star Rating roads for how well they protect the user from death or disabling injury when a crash occurs. The assessment evaluates the safety that is 'built into' the road through its design, in combination with the way traffic is managed on it. [13] The RPS protocol has also been adapted and used by AusRAP, usRAP and iRAP.

EuroNCAP awards 'star ratings' based on the performance of vehicles in crash tests, including front, side and pole impacts, and impacts with pedestrians.

All information for Star (classification)'s wiki comes from the below links. Any source is valid, including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Pictures, videos, biodata, and files relating to Star (classification) are also acceptable encyclopedic sources.
Other wiki pages related to Star (classification).