Wikipedia:WikiProject Romance/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 Main page Notice Board Guidelines Assessment Maintenance Automation & templates Members Outreach Showcase Most Popular Help 
Crystal Clear app package favourite.png

Welcome to the WikiProject Romance Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Romance. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's fictional romance 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 Romance}} talk page project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Romance articles by quality and Category:Romance articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Contents

TIP: If you would like to participate in assessment activities, you may find it helpful to turn on a metadata script that displays an article's assessment when you are viewing any article. In order to do that, click on your "My preferences" link at the top of the page, then the Gadgets category, and check the box under Appearance for "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article."

Current Status[edit]

update

Frequently asked questions[edit]

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject Romance}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
Someone put a {{WikiProject Romance}} template on an article, but it's not a romance 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 WikiProject Romance is free to add or change the rating of an article, except for GA and FA.
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.
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? 
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here.
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]

Quality[edit]

Romance articles to be assessed have some aspects of the {{WikiProject Romance}} template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. Select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed romance articles. Then, look over the article in anticipation of filling out the parameters of the {{WikiProject Romance}} template. Finally, add in the proper parameters to the talk page template, as outlined below.

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Romance}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Romance|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Quality scale for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class romance articles) Featured article FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class romance articles) A-Class article A 
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class romance articles)  GA 
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class romance articles) B-Class article B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class romance articles) C-Class article C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class romance articles) Start-Class article Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class romance articles) Stub-Class article Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class romance articles) Featured list FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class romance articles)  List 

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class romance articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed romance articles)  ??? 

Quality scale[edit]

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

These criteria apply to general-content articles. The style guidelines provides additional guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.

Each romance-related article has its assessment included within the {{WikiProject Romance}} template, such as {{WikiProject Romance|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Romance articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

B-Class criteria[edit]

Special emphasis is given to the six criteria that B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet:

B-Class article B 
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable 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.


Importance[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Romance}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Romance|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project:

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance romance articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance romance articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance romance articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance romance articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance romance articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance romance articles)  ??? 

The importance parameter should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA and should be omitted in those cases. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance romance articles.


Importance scale[edit]

Importance must be regarded as a relative term. Importance values only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in our project may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. 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). The criteria used for rating article importance are meant to be a probable indication of how significant the topic is to fictional romance on a whole, and how likely it would be covered in a serious encyclopedia.

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. Also, please rate it by the objective criteria below, not on subjective criteria like whether or not you've heard of them, or you like or dislike their work. The importance scale is not a popularity contest, but rather a way for us to prioritize articles in our scope.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a "core" topic for romance as a field. Should be articles necessary to understanding the genre (and its evolution) as a whole. A good guide would be any subject mentioned in a published essay that talks about the history of the genre. No member should give this rating to any romance article without first getting Project approval from the other members. Nora Roberts
Romance novel (and its major subgenres)
Kathleen Woodiwiss
The Flame and the Flower
Harlequin
RITA Award
High Subject is very notable or significant within the field of romance and is of interest to those outside of the field. A subject mentioned in a book on the history of the genre most likely falls here. These would include RITA award-winning novels, any novel that was in the top 5 (not as part of a boxed set or anthology) on the NYT bestseller list , or any novel that was adapted by a major studio or television network. Authors who have won multiple notable awards, especially those in the RWA Hall of Fame, or who have had multiple bestsellers on notable bestseller lists like New York Times and USAToday (not Amazon) and didn't land there as part of a boxed set. This includes the next tier of major publishers - Avon, for example. Avon
J.R. Ward
Bet Me
Mansfield Park
Jennifer Crusie
Outlander (novel)
Mid Subject is notable or significant within the field of romance, but not necessarily outside of the field. Novels that won other awards (besides the RITA); novels that were between 6-20 on the NYT Bestseller List or in the top 20 of the USA Today bestseller list ; novels that were made into a direct-to-tv/cable movie. Authors who have won one RITA or had one bestseller that was not in a boxed set make a major bestseller list (A bestseller list only counts if it's the subject of a Wikipedia article). Ellora's Cave
Carolyn Crane
Linda Barlow
The Secrets of Sir Richard Kenworthy
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of romance, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage in relation to some other notable article. This would also include anyone who might be more notable in another field or genre, but doesn't meet the above criteria in romance. Sharp Edges
Pamela Aidan

Requesting an assessment[edit]

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.
Note: This is only to rate the article on quality - you will probably not get feedback on the article.
If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

If you assess an article, please remove it so others will not waste time reviewing the same article(s). It is also helpful to leave a brief note on article's talk, under a heading "B-class review", stating why the article was failed (or that it was reviewed and passed). Make sure to check the overview on how to assess a Romance article for details on how to assess. Thanks!

Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B'; see Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles for higher assessments.
Edit this section and place request here:

  1. Kurt Seyit ve Şura – Needs an importance assessment. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Assessment log[edit]

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

September 16, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 14, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 12, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 9, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 8, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 5, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 4, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 3, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 2, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 1, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 31, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 27, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 19, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 18, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 17, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Judith Lennox (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 15, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 7, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Ashiana (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

August 6, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 5, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 2, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Delia Fiallo (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

July 25, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

July 24, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 20, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Jane Donnelly (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

July 16, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 13, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 12, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Sarah Holland (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

July 10, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 8, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 3, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 2, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

July 1, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 28, 2018[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 26, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 23, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 21, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

June 17, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 11, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • You Me Her (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

June 8, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

June 7, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

June 6, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

May 27, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 23, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • West Side Story (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

May 22, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Dina (film) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

May 8, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 8, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

May 2, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 29, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 27, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Fauxcest (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to NA-Class (rev · t).

April 20, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 18, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

April 12, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Donna Hill (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

April 11, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

April 7, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Fauxcest (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

April 5, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Fauxcest (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

April 4, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 2, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Friends (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).
  • Wedding Crashers (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

March 25, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

March 23, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

March 22, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 21, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

March 18, 2018[edit]

Removed[edit]

March 17, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 13, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 9, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 8, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

March 6, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

March 5, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

March 1, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

February 28, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

February 26, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

February 23, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

February 15, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

February 12, 2018[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

February 8, 2018[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

February 5, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

February 1, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]

January 24, 2018[edit]

Assessed[edit]