Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hurrah (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 29 August 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Novels
The WikiProject
Project page talk
Members talk
Guestbook talk
Coordinators talk
→ Current or Recent Elections
+ talk
JobCentre talk
Announcements (template) talk
Literature Portal talk
Article information
Popular Pages talk
Resources talk
Style guidelines talk
→ Article (pattern template) talk
→ Char. Article (pattern template) talk
→ Book infobox (pattern) talk
→ Short Story infobox (pattern) talk
→ NovelSeries infobox (pattern) talk
→ Character infobox (pattern) talk
Current discussions
General discussion forum (+)
 talk
Novel categorization talk
Work in progress
Main work list talk
Maintenance lists talk
Disputed novel articles talk
Disputed book cover images talk
Articles needed talk
Infobox needed talk
Infobox Incomplete talk
New articles talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ Assessment Top priority talk
Collaboration talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Task forces
19th century task force talk
39 Clues task force talk
Australian task force talk
CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force talk
Chronicles of Narnia task force talk
Crime task force talk
Fantasy task force talk
Harry Potter task force talk
His Dark Materials task force talk
Lemony Snicket task force talk
Military fiction task force talk
Napoleonic fiction work group (military)
 talk
Rick Riordan task force talk
Science fiction task force talk
Shannara task force talk
Short story task force talk
Sword of Truth task force talk
Twilight task force talk
Roald Dahl task force talk
Diary of a Wimpy Kid task force talk
Templates
Project banner talk
Infobox Book (protected) talk
Infobox Short story talk
Infobox character talk
Infobox Novel series talk
Userboxes talk
This box:
• changes

Welcome to the assessment department of the Novels WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's novel and related articles. 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 {{NovelsWikiProject}} talk page project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Novel articles by quality and Category:Novel articles by importance, which serve as the sources for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{NovelsWikiProject}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
Someone put a {{NovelsWikiProject}} template on an article, but it's not a novel or related article. What should I do?
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).
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 Novels WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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.
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 (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system WP:1.0 have been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
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 ask them on the main project general forum page, or contact one of the other members directly.

Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{NovelsWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{NovelsWikiProject| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed novel articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
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.
  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.
  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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:Article development. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, appropriately structured, and be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources. It should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. Only minor style issues and other details need to be addressed before submission as a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed 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 Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and 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 images, video, or 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 (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. 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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed 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 an A-Class 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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 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 solve cleanup problems. Wing
(as of June 2018)
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. 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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 literary movements

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of literature.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a "core" topic for literature, or is highly notable to people other than students of literature. War and Peace
The Lord of the Rings
Pride and Prejudice
High Subject is more notable or significant within the field of literature and outside it. The Name of the Rose
Lucky Jim
Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Mid Subject is notable or significant within the field of literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it. Brighton Rock
Rosemary's Baby
The Body in the Library
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of literature , and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of a notable author or other notable subject. Around The Moon
A Fine Night for Dying

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.

  1. Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea
  2. Boogiepop series
  3. Boogiepop
  4. Nineteen Eighty-Fouralready had one - is it that you disagree with it?!
  5. The Picture of Dorian Gray
  6. The Grapes of Wrath - already had one - project banners go on talk pages.!
  7. Walk Two Moons
  8. Lolita - This is rated as Start-class / Mid-importance. I think it should be B-class / Top-importance (main work of a major author & the word lolita has found its way into the English language, indicating its impact outside the field of literature. I'd like a second opinion before I change it. Agreed!
  9. One Hundred Years of Solitude - to whomever wrote the project banners part ... give me a break. If you don't want my help then tell me. I was just doing what I thought was right ... I saw it like that somewhere else. Request by User:UAAC. I've rated it B-class and propose Top-class, which is to be discussed here. I don't know why you make such bitter remarks, as I've seen nothing that would warrant them. Did I miss something? Errabee 09:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)If you were the one that exclaimed "project banners go on the talk pages" then you warrented a reprisal, if not, then you did not, but it was clearly not addressed to you. Besides, it wasn't bitter, I didn't mean to offend with "give me a break". Take it easy. UAAC 11:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In Search of Lost Time needs an importance rating. Guermantes 03:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I have proposed it to be Top-important; discussion about the importance here[reply]
  11. Dragons of Autumn Twilight- reassessment Added some comments on how to improve.
  12. Dragons of Winter Night
  13. If I Die in a Combat Zone, Box Me Up and Send Me Home My first wiki on a novel. I don't pretend to know much about wiki-novel articles but I hope its a start. Clean up and rewriting where needed would be much appreciated --SGGH 13:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC) I don't think this is a novel (not fictional). Errabee 15:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. The Mists of Avalon
  15. The Palm-Wine Drinkard. Currently rated Low. I haven't made any changes, but I think it should be rated at least High and possibly Top. Amos Tutuola is one of the most well known of African authors and one of the first to be critically acclaimed internationally. This book is listed on Harold Bloom's Western Canon. --Ibis3 00:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Hogwarts Sorry, neither a novel nor a fictional character Errabee 00:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Albus Dumbledore
  18. Hermione Granger
  19. Ron Weasley
  20. Severus Snape
  21. Sirius Black
  22. The Picture of Dorian Gray - has been reviewed previously, but I have edited this article heavily. I feel that this article is close to being FA. User:Adasta I agree with you, but didn't change the assessment. Let's first wait on the GA process to run its course. Errabee 15:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. The Catcher in the Rye-- First to give a rating... It's definitely top-class given its role in high school literature and cultural significance, but I'm not sure on the quality-rating I've given it. Hurrah 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Raw counts

All figures given for the end of each month
Jun 2006 Jul 2006 Aug 2006 (tba)
FA 8 0.37 % 8 0.29 %
A 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 %
GA 0 0.00 % 3 0.11 %
B 7 0.32 % 82 2.96 %
Start 32 1.46 % 256 9.24 %
Stub 24 1.10 % 353 12.74 %
Unassessed 2114 96:75 % 2069 74:76 %
Top 0 19 0.69 %
High 0 105 3.79 %
Mid 0 359 12.96 %
Low 0 172 6.21 %
Total 2185 2771

Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class.
Jul 2006 Aug 2006 (tba)
FA +0 0.00 %
A +0 0.00 %
GA + 3  
B +75 1071.43 %
Start +224 700.00 %
Stub +329 1370.83 %
Unassessed -45 -2.13 %
Top +19  
High +105  
Mid +359  
Low +172  
Total +586 +26.82 %

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment&oldid=72680389"