Welcome to the MedLibrary.org Wikipedia Supplement on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment -- Please Click to Return to Front Page

WikiProject Novels
The WikiProject
Project page	+ talk
Members	talk
Guestbook	talk
Coordinators	talk
→ Recent Elections	+ talk
JobCentre	talk
Announcements (template)	talk
Literature Portal	talk
Article information
Resources	talk
Style guidelines	talk
→ Article (pattern template)	talk
→ Char. Article (pattern template)	talk
→ Book infobox (pattern)	talk
→ Short story 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
Auto-generated Worklists
Book → Novels	talk
Novels without Infobox	talk
Novels with InComplete Infobox	talk
Missing "YYYY novels" category	talk
Departments
Assessment	talk
→ Assessment Top priority	talk
Collaboration	talk
Outreach	talk
Peer review	talk
Task forces
19th century task force	talk
Australian task force	talk
Chronicles of Narnia task force	talk
Crime task force	talk
Fantasy task force	talk
Lemony Snicket task force	talk
Science fiction task force	talk
Shannara task force	talk
Short story task force	talk
Sword of Truth task force	talk
Templates
Project banner	talk
Infobox Book (protected)	talk
Infobox short story	talk
Infobox character	talk
Userbox
WPNOVELS Userbox	talk
This box: view • talk •  • 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.

Contents 1 Frequently asked questions 2 Instructions 2.1 Quality scale 2.2 Importance scale 2.3 Requesting an assessment 3 Statistics 3.1 Raw counts 3.2 Monthly changes 4 Log

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:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class novel articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class novel articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class novel articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class novel articles)
• C (adds articles to Category:C-class novel articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class novel articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class novel articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article novel pages)

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:

• Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance novel articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance novel articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance novel articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance novel articles)

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 article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	Article has obtained "Featured article" status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes or endnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended). Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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.	Tourette Syndrome (as of June 2008)
FL {{FL-Class}}	Article has "Featured lists" status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. 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.			FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A {{A-Class}}	The article is well organized and is essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere, as described here. More detailed criteria Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. 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 (eg WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Biography).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to "tweak" the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help.	Durian (as of March 2007)
GA {{GA-Class}}	Article has obtained Good article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the good article criteria: It is well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[2] It is factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;[3] (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[3] and (c) it contains no original research. It is broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[4] and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). It is neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. It is stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[5] It is illustrated, if possible, by images:[6] (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[7]	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.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	The article is mostly complete, without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria: More detailed criteria The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources and important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}}, is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. 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. The article has a defined structure, including a lead section and all appropriate sections of content. It contains all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams, where appropriate. It should have an infobox where relevant and useful. Images are not required, although illustrated articles are encouraged. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	No reader should be 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.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007)
C {{C-Class}}	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 bias or trivia. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an 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.	Exeter Cathedral (July 2008)
Start {{Start-Class}}	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 it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being 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.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	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 can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	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.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are meant to be an probable indication of how significant the topic is to a reader of literature, and how likely it would be covered in a serious encyclopedia. Hence, for example, Moby-Dick would be ranked higher than an average Anne Rice or Sidney Sheldon novel.

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.	Lolita The Lord of the Rings Pride and Prejudice War and Peace
High	Subject is very notable or significant within its field of literature.	The Name of the Rose Brighton Rock (novel) Lucky Jim
Mid	Subject is notable or significant within the field of literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it.	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 The Holy

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

Requesting an assessment

See the assessment request archive.

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 bottom of the list. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

To assess an article, simply update the Novels WikiProject template on the article's talk page. Please also strike out the request on this page by using the <s>Strike-through text</s> command and add a rationale for your assessment. Don't forget to sign your username after your comment.

1. A Tale of Two Cities - there is much more to do, but I think this article has been improved substantially. I'm hoping it's reached GA status. DiderotWasRight (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

   GA-status cannot be obtained through a reassessment; it must be nominated at WP:GAC and undergo a review. María (habla conmigo) 12:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

2. The Sword of Shannara - Plenty of info and a good number of references. the_ed17 04:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

   B is the highest rating an article can achieve through reassessment; GA, A and FA all require review. Looking good, though! María (habla conmigo) 12:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

   Alright, thank you! the_ed17 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

3. "Suffer the Little Children" - it wasn't too long ago that I tried to get this re-assessed to start, and it was denied, but I have since learned a bit about adding references, and have even found a reliable third-party source. Once again, please add constructive criticism (it really helped last time!).

   Reassessed as Start and left comments on the talk page. :) María (habla conmigo) 17:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

4. Jaz Parks series—Brand new article. I'd be appreciative of classification. Thanks. --James26 (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

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		Apr 2007		May 2007 (tba)
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 %	10	0.10 %	10	0.09 %
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 %	4	0.04 %	4	0.03 %
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 %	10	0.10 %	10	0.09 %
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 %	779	7.57 %	810	7.00 %
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 %	2558	24.86 %	2868	24.79 %
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 %	6920	67.24 %	7453	64.42 %
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 %	9	0.09 %	415	3.59 %
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 %	87	0.85 %	90	0.78 %
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 %	756	7.35 %	777	6.72 %
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 %	5609	54.51 %	6149	53.15 %
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 %	3413	33.17 %	4132	35.71 %
Total	2185		2771		3531		4172		5347		5761		7287		8359		8995		10290		11570

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		Apr 2007		May 2007 (tba)
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 %	0	0.00 %	0	00.00 %
A	+0		+2		+2	100.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	+2	50.00 %	-1	-16.67 %	-1	-20.00 %	0	0.00 %	0	00.00 %
GA	+ 3		+5	166.67 %	-1	-12.50 %	+1	14.29 %	0	0.00 %	0	0.00 %	-1	-12.50 %	+3	42.86 %	0	0.00 %	0	00.00 %
B	+75	1071.43 %	+88	107.32 %	+143	84.12 %	+85	27.16 %	+74	18.59 %	+78	16.53 %	+159	28.44 %	+50	6.96 %	+11	1.43 %	+31	3.98 %
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 %	+84	3.40 %	+310	12.19 %
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 %	+1196	20.89 %	+533	07.70 %
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 %	+4	80.00 %	+406	4511.11 %
Top	+19		+32	168.42 %	+18	35.29 %	+4	5.80 %	0	0.00 %	+3	4.11 %	+5	6.58 %	+8	9.88 %	-2	-2.25 %	+3	3.45 %
High	+105		+65	61.90 %	+247	145.29 %	+134	32.13 %	+50	9.07 %	+51	4.89 %	+60	9.20 %	+35	4.92 %	+9	1.20 %	+21	2.81 %
Mid	+359		+239	66.57 %	+479	80.10 %	+440	40.85 %	+543	35.79 %	+1010	49.03 %	+1564	50.94 %	+715	15.43 %	+260	4.86 %	+540	9.63 %
Low	+172		+99	57.56 %	+169	62.36 %	+560	127.27 %	+181	18.10 %	+553	46.82 %	+538	31.03 %	+530	23.33 %	+611	5.84 %	+719	21.07 %
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 %	+1295	+14.40 %	+1280	+12.44 %

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.

Wikipedia content modification information:

• This page was last modified on 2 July 2008, at 17:11.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment".

The URL for this specific entry is:

• http://medlibrary.org/medwiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.