Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment

Novel articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	5	19	39	23			86
FL	1	5	17	21			44
GA	9	37	119	180		9	354
B	45	118	367	298		41	869
C	78	311	1,150	1,992		218	3,749
Start	20	503	4,307	9,030		1,201	15,061
Stub	3	141	3,416	13,028		3,082	19,670
List	2	8	596	541		77	1,224
Category			4	20	11,771		11,795
Disambig	1		2	14	67		84
File				12	21,338		21,350
Portal					43		43
Project				12	210		222
Redirect		9	309	2,141	5,308		7,767
Template		5	4	19	2,260		2,288
NA			1	10	2		13
Other			1	2	122		125
Assessed	164	1,156	10,332	27,343	41,121	4,628	84,744
Unassessed				30		2,080	2,110
Total	164	1,156	10,332	27,373	41,121	6,708	86,854
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 211,642			Ω = 5.32

Hello and welcome to the assessment department of the Novels WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's novel and novel-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:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class novel articles)
• FL (adds articles to Category:FL-Class novel articles) - Featured List (subject to the same controls as FA)
• 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:NA-Class novel articles)
• Cat (adds articles to Category:Category-Class novel articles)
• Dab (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class novel articles)
• List (adds articles to Category:List-Class novel articles)
• Portal (adds articles to Category:Portal-Class novel articles)
• Project (adds articles to Category:Project-Class novel articles)
• Redirect (adds articles to Category:Redirect-Class novel articles)
• Template (adds articles to Category:Template-Class novel articles)

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 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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and 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. 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. 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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. 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 sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. 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. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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. His Family -- it was a stub before, but I think it should be higher now. This is my first novel article in years, though, so I'm not sure. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 05:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

   It was reassessed as C here by SoWhy (talk · contribs), and I agree with the rating. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan)

2. Maniac Magee -- Started as a stub. I rewrote the summary and added on sections for major characters, critical reviews, use in education, etc. Added references. maniacmagee (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

   Looks like it was rerated here on 26 August. Great work on the article; it was a fun read! I haven't read that novel in years... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

3. The Man Who Fell in Love with the Moon - Major expansion, with inline cites and so on. Personally, I feel it's borderline C/B, but ranked it C temporarily. Less biased eyes than mine may make this decision about moving (or not) to B-class. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

   Assessed as B; good job! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

4. Osiris Rising - I think this is probably closing in on C class, but I would like to know what someone else thinks.(It may be a start, but I think I have sourced everything that can be sourced and it covers all of the scholarship.SADADS (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

   Yup, it's C. Needs a plot summary and (if you can) more on the reception. Not sure why parts of the reception are indented? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

5. The Gathering Storm (novel) - Still a some work to do, but, B class? Rehevkor ✉ 23:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

   Yes, definitely B-class. Good work. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

6. The Faerie Wars Chronicles - real world info added. Extremepro (talk) 10:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

   Rated C-class. The synopsis for the last book is much longer than any of the others; it should be shortened. Also, out of curiosity, what is the reasoning for the order in which the characters are listed? Importance in books? I was just curious. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

   They are listed by race first then by importance within their races. Extremepro (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

7. The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, The Alchemyst: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, The Magician: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, The Sorceress: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel, The Necromancer: The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel I've spent the last few days cleaning these articles up (and creating in the case of The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel series page) could you please give them a look over and see if they can be raised up from start & stub classifications please? Any advice is welcome :) Thank you in advance! Zephfya (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
8. Ramage (novel) - did some pretty big revisions. Not very good at assessment or I would do some of the above ones. SADADS (talk) 02:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

   It looked pretty good - I rated it C-class. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

9. The Last Theorem - expanded from a stub. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 13:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

   Thank you Sadads for the B-class rating. --Bruce1ee^talk 05:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

10. Up in the Air - is currently rated stub-class. I added information to the article, since Up in the Air (film) is loosely based upon this novel. I believe that the article should be rated at least Start-class. I was considering adding a section in the article that compares the novel to the film, since there are significant differences between the book and the film. Would adding such a section be appropriate so long as it has proper citations? --Dan Dassow (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

    Yes, it's a start now. I think that would be alright if it had the citations. The "sales" section needs to be beefed up, and a "reception" detailing critics' reaction to the work should be added. Regards, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

11. Dark Guardian—Newly created article. The assessment would be appreciated. -- James26 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Need (novel series)—Another newly created article. The assessment would be appreciated. -- James26 (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

    Assessed both Dark Guardian and Need (novel series). Both looked like C-class articles to me. --SilentAria ^talk 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

13. The Immortals (novel) - was stub. Applied template. Added infobox, publication history, etc. Upgrade to C? Maybe B? Nlowell 2010 (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    I changed it to C and left a few comments on the talk page. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Not sure I quite agree. Certainly not B - but this article takes almost the opposite take to most on wikipedia. It is almost no content related material and all real world elements (most unusual). Although the real world material is good there is little to inform a reader about the nature of the work itself and why it is of interest/value. I would have placed this as Start myself. But good on whoever added the real world content! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Collectonian did not agree either and changed back to stub. I am new at rating articles, so I have no problem with those ratings being changed. It could be my inexperience, but I thought stub was a bit low, considering that it is somewhat informative and most stubs I have seen have almost no content whatsoever. I also addressed the lack of content related material on the talk page. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

    Definitely a start. Sadads (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

14. Alex Delaware (currently rated start class) was written entirely from the in-universe perspective with no sources. I've rewritten, added sources, and generally improved the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

     DoneRaised to C class, much improved - still more scope but heading in the right direction. #:: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

15. Saturday (novel) (currently start class) It was just a plot summary and some incorrect information about a film until I came along. I've added five or six solid sources, literary form, critical reception, and major themes. Plus re-written the plot synopsis and lead. I think I could do still more, but since I'm the sole editor would like some outside guidance before continuing. I had already asked for peer review, but since the article is only start class at the moment, and it's come on alot I think an assesment would be in order. Thanks, Ktlynch (talk) 11:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

     DoneRaised to C B class, and made peer review suggestions. Sadads (talk) 17:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

16. Urban fantasy -- I've given this a bit of an overhaul, and also cleaned certain areas up a little. I'd appreciate the assessment whenever anyone has the time. -- James26 (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

     Done like it, very thorough and concise. Sources also appear reliable. Sadads (talk) 00:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

17. True at First Light — recently improved and expanded. Currently unrated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
18. Click (novel) is probably ready to be promoted to something more than a stub. --Hcps-hoytca (talk) 00:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
19. The Better Man (book). Recently crested areticle. i'm particualrly unsure what importance/priority this should get, low or mid, since it apparently got quite a bit of favorable critical reaction both in the UK and in India. DES ^(talk) 21:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
20. Indian Camp. Expanded from stub. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

    I rated it B-class. You seem to have covered many aspects of the story and referenced them well. PrincessofLlyr (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

21. Summer of My German Soldier Expanded from stub now includes infobox but needs picture --Falco little (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

    Rated C class. A good start. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

22. The 39 Clues--mono 00:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

    Rated C-class for reasonable coverage and decent referencing. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 00:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

23. The Guardian (novel) I have added additional citations in the past and especially with the first one pointing to Amazon and the first 6 pages of the book and the back I see no need for further citation any more. Please advise....--Ruedi33a (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

    I think the start-class rating is still accurate. It needs more citations, particularly in the section about themes. External links do not count as references. It is a good start, but needs more work. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

    I to agree with this assesment.Sadads (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

24. Last Night in Twisted River – expanded from a stub. Thanks. --Bruce1ee^talk 09:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

    Rated B class. Nice expansion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

    Thank you. --Bruce1ee^talk 11:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

25. The Star of Kazan should be permitted in high ratings.

    Still a stub, no significant change in quality.Sadads (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

26. The Windup Girl - wonder why it's a stub. A Nebula award winner is Low priority?

since upgraded to START. Importance?

1. Here Be Dragons needs reassessment since expansion. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

   I think C (current rating) is accurate. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

2. The Maze of Bones. It's Start class, but I think it has been much improved since then. Homework2 ^TalkWhat I do 00:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
3. The Seems It is currently a stub, but after working on it for a month now I think it can be a start class. Derild4921 14:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
4. Danger Along the Ohio It is currently a stub. I has very much improved since I got there.

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		Feb 2009
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 %	21	0.0009 %
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 %	1	~0 %
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 %	60	.0028 %
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 %	946	.0437 %
C	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	246	.0114 %
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 %	4679	21.61 %
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 %	15589	71.99 %
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 %	0	0 %
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 %	109	.0050 %
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 %	839	.0387 %
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 %	8092	37.37 %
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 %	11224	51.83 %
Total	2185		2771		3531		4172		5347		5761		7287		8359		8995		10290		11570		21654

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; due to its size (ca 100 kB), it cannot be transcluded directly.