Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment

Novel articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	5	19	40	24			88
FL	1	6	17	21			45
GA	9	38	118	179		9	353
B	46	121	375	318		47	907
C	78	320	1,181	2,077		222	3,878
Start	22	501	4,402	9,456	1	1,247	15,629
Stub	3	137	3,293	12,763		3,047	19,243
List	2	10	596	544		77	1,229
Category				1	12,511		12,512
Disambig				1	83		84
File				7	21,307		21,314
Portal					44		44
Project				10	212		222
Redirect		9	296	2,243	5,362		7,910
Template			1	2	2,294		2,297
NA			1	5	8		14
Other					125		125
Assessed	166	1,161	10,320	27,651	41,947	4,649	85,894
Unassessed				36	1	2,020	2,057
Total	166	1,161	10,320	27,687	41,948	6,669	87,951
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 212,563			Ω = 5.30

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.

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:Non-article novel pages)
• 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)
• 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 content 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 and includes at minimum eight items; 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. At Swim-Two-Birds Hi - sorry to be so persistent, but I've made some more of what I hope are improvements, and am wondering if it's worth my while submitting this for GAC status. Thanks - Lexo (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

   A PR may be helpful in this regard. This page is generally only for ratings. María (habla conmigo) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

2. Rider at the Gate I expanded this from a redirect last year but it seems to have slipped through the assessment net. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 12:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

   Assessed as Start/Low. María (habla conmigo) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

3. Cloud's Rider As above, I expanded this from a redirect last year. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 13:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

   Assessed as Start/Low. María (habla conmigo) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

4. The Marriages Between Zones Three, Four and Five I expanded this last week and suggest a "Mid-importance" rating to match the preceding book in this series. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 10:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

   Reassessed as C/Mid. María (habla conmigo) 18:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

   Thank you, and for the two above. --Bruce1ee^talk 09:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

5. Look Homeward, Angel, this was recently wikinovels collaboration of the month, and I, primarily, made 79 edits to it. I think it deserves to be moved up a few spots from stub-class, and it is very highly sourced.--Robert Waalk (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

   Although no longer a stub simply because of length, this article is (at the moment) no more than start-class. For one, bookrags.com does not constitute a reliable source per WP:RS and that is unfortunately the predominate reference. María (habla conmigo) 00:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

6. American Empire: Blood and Iron - I am working on a personal project adding reviews and references to sf stubs and just want to get a better line between stub/start. Could you give me a quick assessment on these three stubs. Thanks--Captain-tucker (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
7. The Dangerous Days of Daniel X
8. Eifelheim (novel)

   I would give each a Start class although they could do with a bit more in each case. The last has a title needed in one of the references. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

9. The Sirian Experiments - I expanded this from a stub and suggest a "Mid-importance" rating to match the preceding books in this series. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
10. The Making of the Representative for Planet 8 - I expanded this from a stub. Thanks --Bruce1ee^talk 10:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    Both much improved. So raise to C-class. Could you just check that the infobox reflects the 1st editions and whether or not they are US or UK first editions. They currently imply that the US was the first edition. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

    Thanks for that. The infobox covers for this series are all US first editions, and from what I can establish (but please correct me if I'm wrong), all the books in this series were published in the US first and then the UK. --Bruce1ee^talk 13:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

11. Romance novel -Malkinann (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

    Now quite a substancial article rated «B/High». Great work, very comprehensive. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 06:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

12. Scenes of Clerical Life - There's more work to do on this, but I'd like to have an indication of how I'm getting on. El Staplador (talk) 10:47, 21 October 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; due to its size (ca 100 kB), it cannot be transcluded directly.