Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important/Now reassigned

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Novels previously assigned Top-importance but now reassigned

[edit]

n.b. please list strictly alphabetically

Summary status ( 4 for | 5 against) Top class - as at 12:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 15:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 16:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It got demoted to Mid-importance. Errabee 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rerate to high.
  • Top. I disagree with john k. Criteria should not be made on knowability but on how influential or important the novel is. This is an English-language world encyclopedia. If a book is little known in the English-speaking world but important and highly regarded elsewhere, all the more it should be promoted. Mandel 07:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC
Summary status ( 0 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Rated as High as a compromise - can't see this as a Top yet myself either :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 0 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Rated as Medium based on concensus :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 0 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mid - While there are classic children's novels that justify Top and High importance, I wouldn't think of this as one of them. --Sordel 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • High or Mid - One of an enormous series of children's books I've never heard of. Doesn't seem comparable to Moby-Dick or Crime and Punishment
  • Mid - Agree with Sordel and john k.
Summary status ( 0 for | 6 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 2 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I know of no idea of queue here - or even of the real benefit for one. However if that is what we want, we should get on with those titles you mention. They should all be Top in my view. Even Famous Five as they have had hugh impact on readership particulary in the 20th Century. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, as an American, I'd never heard of this book until I came upon it in the top category. Some children's classics, I suspect, are strongly centered in a single country, and this would appear to be among them. Perhaps I'm wrong, and this is popular outside of Britain, but I'd be interested to see some evidence of that. Beyond that, I largely agree with Sordel - I think an informal "queue" makes a fair degree of sense - basically, starting from a small list of indisputable great novels (Anna Karenina, Don Quixote, Ulysses, and so forth), and gradually building up by putting in books that are of comparable importance to those already on the list. Otherwise we get into a lot of these problems of commensurability. john k 18:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to Top. I agree with Kevinalewis. Probably the best known of this series, all of which have stood the test of time and should be represented in some form. The other novels mentioned by Sordel are also worthy of consideration, but the fact that they have not been considered up until now is not a sufficient reason to downgrade this one. Silverthorn 11:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 1 for | 2 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 3 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Summary status ( 0 for | 4 against) Top class - as at 08:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak rerate as high. Yet another Dickens novel; don't get me wrong, I love Dickens but too much is too much. Errabee 12:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rerate as high. Whilst Dickens is undoubtedly an important author, I do not believe that justifies rating all of his novels as top. This one I do not believe is of sufficient significance in it's own right to justify the top rating. Silverthorn 13:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak rerate as high. The only argument for keeping is that this was arguably his debut (ok, so technically Sketches came first).--Ibis3 21:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rerate as high. It's not much read, has no major film and is thought to be minor in terms of actual literary value. With so many candidates for top-importance in Dickens's oeuvre, this is one that really could be relegated. --Sordel 07:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Summary status ( 0 for | 6 against) Top class - as at 16:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)