Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 {{WikiProject Novels}} 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[edit]

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject Novels}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
Someone put a {{WikiProject Novels}} 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[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Novels| ... | 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[edit]

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

Importance scale[edit]

The criteria used for rating article importance are meant to be a 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 (novel)
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. 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[edit]

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. In the Skin of a Lion - requesting reassessment above start-class EmilyMordue (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC) -->
     Done Reassessed as start-class: overall a very good article, though it lacks the depth of coverage, in terms of themes and other topics. Work on that and request a reassessment again.  LoMS talk 13:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. The Stone Carvers - requesting reassessment above start-class EmilyMordue (talk) 00:09 2 December 2016 (UTC)
     Done Reassessed as start-class: the lead needs to conform to WP:LEAD. Some background/development info should be added too.  LoMS talk 13:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Shutter Island - requesting reassessment above start-class Marie-Pierre St-Louis (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
     Done Reassessed as start-class: missing info in the lead, see WP:LEAD. No themes section. No development/background section. Work on those, and ask for another reassessment.  LoMS talk 13:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  4. The Light that Failed - I've expanded the article from stub to start class and am requesting an assessment for a second opinion and for improvement points. There's also a DYK nomination that is ongoing for this article. Ciridae (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
    @Ciridae: Done. Assessed as C-class for now. Work on the lead -- add a line or two from the Themes, Adaptions and Publications sections -- and request another assessment; it may qualify for B-class after those changes. LoMStalk 15:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  5. Airframe (novel) - requesting reassessment above start-class SaAnKe (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
     Done Reassessed as C-class: Needs to comply with WP:LEAD, could use some background around when in Crichton's career this was published and how the book was researched (given its theme on technical analysis), expanding on the references used (like this and this) maclean (talk) 03:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
  6. Void Star requesting first assessment of this article I created. Thanks in advance, M.Kayali (talk) 03:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC).
     Done Reassessed as start-class: Needs further expansion to proceed to C-class. maclean (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
  7. Tarzan of the Apes: Looks like it was last assessed in 2006, and the article has changed significantly since then. There's enough research out there to make it a GA eventually (though I know it would prob take a lot of work). Just interested in an accurate assessment before diving in.--MattMauler (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
     Done Reassessed as C-class: It's a reasonable article but needs to address WP:LEAD, the list-sections per list incorporation (they may be better merged with other sections), and it could use a Reception section (the lead mentions how popular it was but that is not stated in the body). maclean (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
  8. Legendary Moonlight Sculptor: It's been start-class for a while now. I've worked on it, and hopefully qualifies as more than that. Let me know. - MakersBreath (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

Raw counts[edit]

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
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 % 10 0.10 % 10 0.09 % 21 0.0009 %
A-Class article 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[edit]

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)
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 % 0 0.00 % 0 00.00 %
A-Class article 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[edit]

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.