Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Novels
WikiProject
Information
Project page talk
Members talk
→ Article (pattern template) talk
→ Char. Article (pattern template) talk
→ Book infobox (pattern) talk
→ Short story infobox (pattern) talk
Literature Portal talk
Current discussions
General discussion forum talk
Novel categorization talk
Work in progress
Main work list talk
Articles needed talk
Infobox needed talk
Infobox Incomplete talk
New articles talk
→ Announcements (template) talk
Auto Worklists
Book → Novels (Auto list) talk
Novels without Infobox (Auto list) talk
Novels with InComplete Infobox (Auto list) talk
Missing "YYYY novels" category (Auto list) talk
Departments
Assessment talk
→ Assessment Top priority talk
Collaboration talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Task forces
Short story task force talk
Crime task force talk
Science fiction task force talk
Tools
Main Article Template talk
Book infobox talk
Short story infobox talk
Infobox Needed Template talk
Infobox Incomplete Template talk
Userboxes
Project Userbox talk
edit · changes
Shortcut:
WP:NOVA
Novel
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 3 6 1 10
A 1 2 1 4
Good article GA 3 3 4 10
B 50 208 463 58 779
Start 29 330 1751 448 2558
Stub 1 207 3389 2907 416 6920
Assessed 87 756 5609 3413 416 10281
Unassessed 0 0 0 0 9 9
Total 87 756 5609 3413 425 10290

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.

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible. Supernova (as of February 2007)
A
{{A-Class}}		 Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Durian (as of March 2007)
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}		 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 having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B
{{B-Class}}		 Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. 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. Munich air disaster (as of May 2006) has a lot of helpful material but contains too many lists, and needs more prose content & references.
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
 Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage. Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}		 The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

[edit] 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. Lolita
The Lord of the Rings
Pride and Prejudice
Catcher in the Rye
High Subject is more notable or significant within the field of literature and outside it. The Name of the Rose
Little Women
Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Lucky Jim
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

N.b. Discussion on which articles should be included in the "Top" priority class takes place here, Top priority.

[edit] 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 - at the end of the list. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

n.b. there is an archive of these requests for anyone who is interested. Request archive.

  1. East of Eden (John Steinbeck) − A considerable amount of content has been added since it was given the Assessment tag. Several editors have contributed, and I believe it now should be ranked as B-class. Compare the version on August 3 (last edit before being tagged) with the version on January 11 (most recent). − Twas Now 10:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
  2. Crystal Mask - by Katherine Roberts - Completed infobox, added Major themes, Allusions/references to other works, Literary criticism, added some content to other sections. Overall added quite alot since last assessment but I don't know how to improve it. Would be nice if someone could reassess it. Comparison between last assessment; 22 December 2006 [1] and now [2] Caladon 12:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
  3. Request for several: Dragons of Spring Dawning, Time of the Twins, War of the Twins, Test of the Twins, The Second Generation. All unassessed thus far. DoomsDay349 23:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  4. Don Quixote Substantial editing— moving of text, created attempt at a systematic TOC; added commentary of linguistics in the interest of certain clarifications (e.g., puns of the novel) [with refs. to Real Academia Española;] some 'cit. needed' locs noted. PlasticDoor 22:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
    Clearly already a B-class before you started - this article should go forward for GA (Good Article) review or at least peer review in preparation. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  5. The Well of Loneliness - I'm not sure how much it really matters, but could someone revisit the importance rating of this newly promoted FA? "Low" was appropriate based on what was in the article when it was first assessed, but it now explains the book's significance outside the field of literature. —Celithemis 23:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed, pushed it up to Mid, others may have a different perspective! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
  6. Christ Clone Trilogy - Requesting rating on both quality and importance.
  7. I have made several recent changes (including adding illustrations) to a group of related articles: Abbey Girls, Abbey Connectors and Oxenham Non-Connectors - as well as to the biblio-biographical article Elsie J. Oxenham and I would be grateful for rating/feedback please on any or all. Thanks --Abbeybufo 14:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  8. The Ascendants of Estorea (James Barclay) - Much of the previous issues have been fixed, please rate the page again and then the article can continue to develop.
    Can't see that the article has developed that much or that notablity has been proven to be that great yet. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  9. The Other Side Of The Hedge (E.M. Forster) - The article has been completely changed. I believe it should now be ranked again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Travel38 (talk • contribs).
    Upped the importance slightly based on author's importance, however otherwise left alone. Comments with article. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  10. The Mysterious Benedict Society by Trenton Lee Stewart. The article has really grown since it was first made.Codelyoko194 14:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
    given an assesment, but the article primarily needs to assert notability and be more selective in content. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  11. Cyborg (novel) - I didn't make any changes but did run across it when looking it up to decide whether or not to buy a copy of the book that I found cheap. I found it thorough and useful and well-written. Really, I think it's thorough enough and well-written enough to warrant a (it's currently only Start class) B-class; with a few cites, I think it could easily be a GA. - User:Runa27 not logged in 169.139.190.6
    No change to assessment made, but reasoning added to the "comments" with the assessment. Basically it is good, but to be a "B" of certainly a "GA" it would need a lot more. see comments with novel. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  12. The Death of Artemio Cruz by Carlos Fuentes. I think it deserves a higher importance rating. It is a book written by a very famous author read in high schools and colleges across the US and the world ; it is a staple of Latin American literature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.169.28.126 (talk • contribs).
However there isn't even anything in the article to show it as notable enough for wikipedia inclusion. This needs plenty of work first. Also "across the countries by a very famous author" doesn't make grammatical sense, what is the extent of the influence being asserted. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
note above original comment changed so my questions seem now very out of context, but I've left them as I made them, please see back a step or two in history for the original of the user comments. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Country, written by a famous author, just a little slip up. I thought the importance factor was how important the book was, not the article. Basically I think the article needs to be expanded a lot so it is on par with, say, the One Hundred Years of Solitude article. Sorry if this is the wrong way to request that, I don't understand any of this wiki-bureaucracy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.162.40.183 (talk • contribs).
  1. The Famous Five (characters) does not seem to be of 'high' importance; I suggest reviewing it for a potential lowering in importance since neither the author nor the series has much cultural currency today.128.59.43.48 21:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Reviewed but left "High", reason given with article. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

[edit] Raw counts

All figures given for the end of each month
Jun 2006 Jul 2006 Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Mar 2007 (tba)
Featured article FA 8 0.37 % 8 0.29 % 7 0.20 % 6 0.14 % 6 0.11 % 7 0.12 % 7 0.10 % 9 0.11 % 10 0.11 %
A 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % 2 0.06 % 4 0.10 % 4 0.07 % 4 0.07 % 6 0.10 % 5 0.06 % 4 0.04 %
Good article GA 0 0.00 % 3 0.11 % 8 0.23 % 7 0.17 % 8 0.15 % 8 0.14 % 8 0.11 % 7 0.08 % 10 0.11 %
B 7 0.32 % 82 2.96 % 170 4.81 % 313 7.50 % 398 7.44 % 472 8.19 % 559 7.67 % 718 8.59 % 768 8.54 %
Start 32 1.46 % 256 9.24 % 416 11.78 % 712 9.97 % 1011 18.91 % 1190 20.66 % 1499 20.57 % 2167 25.92 % 2474 27.50 %
Stub 24 1.10 % 353 12.74 % 540 15.29 % 1022 24.50 % 1771 33.12 % 2238 38.85 % 3455 47.41 % 4799 57.41 % 5724 63.64 %
Unassessed 2114 96:75 % 2069 74:76 % 2388 67.63 % 2108 50.53 % 2049 38.32 % 1842 31.97 % 1753 24.06 % 654 7.82 % 5 0.05 %
Top 0 19 0.69 % 51 1.44 % 69 2.40 % 73 1.37 % 73 1.27 % 76 1.04 % 81 0.97 % 89 0.99 %
High 0 105 3.79 % 170 4.81 % 417 10.00 % 551 10.30 % 601 10.43 % 652 8.95 % 712 8.52 % 747 8.30 %
Mid 0 359 12.96 % 598 16.94 % 1077 25.81 % 1517 28.37 % 2060 35.76 % 3070 42.13 % 4634 55.44 % 5349 59.47 %
Low 0 172 6.21 % 271 7.67 % 440 10.55 % 1000 18.70 % 1181 20.50 % 1734 23.80 % 2272 27.18 % 2802 31.15 %
Total 2185 2771 3531 4172 5347 5761 7287 8359 8995

[edit] Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class.
Jul 2006 Aug 2006 Sep 2006 Oct 2006 Nov 2006 Dec 2006 Jan 2007 Feb 2007 Mar 2007 (tba)
Featured article FA +0 0.00 % -1 -12.50 % -1 -14.29 % 0 0.00 % +1 16.67 % 0 0.00 % +2 28.57 % +1 11.11 %
A +0 +2 +2 100.00 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % +2 50.00 % -1 -16.67 % -1 -20.00 %
Good article GA + 3   +5 166.67 % -1 -12.50 % +1 14.29 % 0 0.00 % 0 0.00 % -1 -12.50 % +3 42.86 %
B +75 1071.43 % +88 107.32 % +143 84.12 % +85 27.16 % +74 18.59 % +78 16.53 % +159 28.44 % +50 06.96 %
Start +224 700.00 % +160 62.50 % +296 71.15 % +299 41.99 % +179 17.71 % +309 25.97 % +668 44.56 % +307 14.17 %
Stub +329 1370.83 % +187 52.97 % +482 89.26 % +749 73.29 % +467 26.37 % +1217 54.38 % +1344 38.90 % +925 19.27 %
Unassessed -45 -2.13 % +319 15.42 % -280 -11.73 % -59 -2.80 % -207 -10.10 % -89 -4.83 % -1099 -62.69 % -649 -99.24 %
Top +19   +32 168.42 % +18 35.29 % +4 5.80 % 0 0.00 % +3 4.11 % +5 6.58 % +8 09.88 %
High +105   +65 61.90 % +247 145.29 % +134 32.13 % +50 9.07 % +51 4.89 % +60 9.20 % +35 04.92 %
Mid +359   +239 66.57 % +479 80.10 % +440 40.85 % +543 35.79 % +1010 49.03 % +1564 50.94 % +715 15.43 %
Low +172   +99 57.56 % +169 62.36 % +560 127.27 % +181 18.10 % +553 46.82 % +538 31.03 % +530 23.33 %
Total +586 +26.82 % +760 +27.43 % +641 +18.15 % +1175 +28.16 % +404 +3.57 % +1526 +26.49 % +1072 +14.71 % +636 +07.61 %

[edit] 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 "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia%7EWikiProject_Novels_Assessment_9329.html"