Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Children's Literature WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality and importance of Wikipedia's children's and young-adult literature related articles through the WP:1.0 program.

Assessing articles

Any user can add articles to this WikiProject by adding {{WikiProject Children's literature}} to the article's talk page. This should only be done if the article relates directly to the project scope, and if you find any articles which seem to be incorrectly tagged then they can be delisted by removing the project template from the talk page.

Articles are assessed through the |class= and |importance= parameters in their {{WikiProject Children's literature}} project template. Class is used to denote the quality of the article, and importance to denote its importance to WikiProject Children's Literature. The possible values for each of these can be found in Assessment Criteria below. Often when articles are first tagged they will not be assessed on these qualities, but they will automatically be added to the project and should be assessed shortly, allowing for delay due to backlog.

Any user can assess articles for this project, even if they are not a member. However, some users prefer an outsider's opinion on articles they are closely involved in, and you can request an assessment from project members by adding the article to the list of Assessment requests below. These will be dealt with by a number of editors; if you would prefer one particular individual for some reason, it may be better to contact them through their talk page.

Ratings are often subjective and will change over time as the article develops. If you have any problems with the ratings system, you may wish to leave a message at the project talk page or the article discussion page.

Department tasks

If you want to help the assessment department, please contribute to any of the following tasks:

• Assessing unassessed quality articles.
• Assessing unassessed importance articles.
• Completing requested assessments.
• Double-checking existing assessments. Editors do not always remember to update an article's class after improving it, and the criteria for both importance and quality change over time. Ideally, articles should have their assessments checked at least once a year.

Assessment Criteria

This project uses the WP:1.0 assessment criteria to assess articles. The criteria specific to this project are listed below.

Assessment criteria

Quality scale

This WikiProject uses the WP:1.0 quality scale to assess its articles. If you feel any article is incorrectly assessed, you can either change it yourself, selecting the correct article class from the table below, or request an assessment from this department for a more objective viewpoint.

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 for rating importance are intended to give a probable indication of the relevance of each article to this particular project and the likelihood of the topic's inclusion in a traditional encyclopedia. Importance is intended to be a neutral, international value which is not affected by editor demographics or regional biases, but some subjectivity is always present. If you do not agree with an article's importance rating, you may wish to contact the user who assessed the article, or begin a discussion of that article at the Article Discussion page.

Label	Criteria	Examples
Top	Subject is a "core" topic for children's literature and is highly significant to a general audience.	Dr. Seuss Newbery Medal
High	Subject is very notable or significant within the field of children's literature and has some significance to a general audience.	Curious George Judy Blume
Mid	Subject is notable or significant within the field of children's literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it.	Walk Two Moons Quentin Blake
Low	Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of children's literature, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of a notable author or other notable subject.	Absolutely Normal Chaos Anthea Bell

Assessment requests

If you have made significant changes to an article on this project and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below along with your signature and any comments you wish to leave. This is not required, and you may assess the article for yourself, but any articles here should soon receive attention from a project member, who may also leave comments on the article's talk page. If you assess an article on this list, please use <s> and </s> to strike it through so that other editors do not waste time going there. Assessed articles will be removed periodically.

Please do not place articles which you believe to be Good Article or Featured Article class on this list. These have their own nomination procedures, which can be found at Good Article nominations and Featured Article nominations.

Please do not place articles which have not yet received assessments on this list. Any unassessed article with the project tag will automatically be categorised as unassessed and will be dealt with as soon as possible. There may be a short delay due to backlog.

1. Paul Stewart (writer) There's more to do but I would like to have the progress assessed.--Plad2 (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Janni Howker Just found this languishing on the Unreferenced BLP's list. I've added our Project template, a reference and a reflist. Assume it's a stub. My guess Mid-Low importance.--Plad2 (talk) 11:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Ann Turner (writer)Ditto. Someone had added the Project template already but it needs assessment.--Plad2 (talk) 11:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Ian Wallace (illustrator) Ditto.
5. Patricia Reilly Giff Found another one. Full of spam. Needs a thorough going over--Plad2 (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Robert Rigby Ditto. Not spam but needs a lot of work.--Plad2 (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
7. William E. Bell Canadian prizewinning author. Retrieved from unfreferenced BLP list. Discussion going on last month about merging with another page but nothing has happened so far.--Plad2 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Jim Burke (illustrator) US multi-award-winning illustrator. Retrieved from unfreferenced BLP list. Needs a lot of work.
9. Lucy Hawking--Plad2 (talk) 13:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Roald Dahl Languishing as a C class but by the criteria above seems to me to be at GA or even A class. Could this be reassessed, please?--Plad2 (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
11. The Secrets of the Immortal Nicholas Flamel Some improvements. Might be considered for promotion to B class.
12. Libby Hathorn Well-established prizewining Australian author. Retrieved from unfreferenced BLP list. Needs work.--Plad2 (talk) 22:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Maria Parr New page. Norwegian children's writer
14. Stephen Cosgrove (writer) US author. Retrieved from unfreferenced BLP list. Tone of article a bit spammy. Needs a lot of work--Plad2 (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Koji Ishikawa (illustrator) Japanese illustrator. Retrieved from unfreferenced BLP list. Needs work.--Plad2 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
16. The Kane Chronicles I've just created it; there is still much work to be done. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 17:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
17. The True Confessions of Charlotte Doyle I had hoped to get this page closer to GA crition before requesting an assessment, but it's not there yet and I'm not sure what else to do to get it there so might as well get it reassessed. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
18. The Killing (novel) Reassesment Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook)
19. Divine Madness Reassesment Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook)
20. Edmund Evans needs assessment. Engraver and printer who collaborated with Caldecott and Greenaway. Developed from stub class. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
21. Edmund Evans Reassessment. Article has undergone additional expansion, but very little information exists about the topic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
22. Joel Chandler Harris This article has been significantly expanded since it was listed as Start Class. Will someone take a look at it please? J L Shakespeare (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
23. The Borrowers I personally think that this is no longer stub , but I'm not sure if it's start or not. Rock drum (talk·contribs·guestbook) 16:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
24. Clive King Following merger with text from The 22 Letters and the creation of additional text and addition of images, I think worth asking for a reassessment. When you have time. No rush.--Plad2 (talk) 09:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
25. Summer of My German Soldier Added infobox and lots of information I very much doubt this is still a stub --Falco little (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
26. Marilyn Kaye I would appreciate any feedback on how to improve this article further. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 17:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

    Feedback left on article talk page. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 22:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

27. List of The 39 Clues characters: Hello! I am the main editor of this list, and in my own opinion, the list would classify into at least a Mid-class. I would really appreciate whatever grade you would give to the list, or if not, I would still accept it. --FDJoshua22 (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

    The classification on the list currently is for importance, not quality. I believe the low-importance rating is warranted. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    Oh, Ok. Thanks for the reminder. But since it is not qualified for the importance scale, can it be promoted in the quality scale?--FDJoshua22 13:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    It appears that lists are classified only as "list" or "featured list". See WP:FL for more on featured lists. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

28. Paranormalcy Created about a month ago and expanded recently. I'd appreciate the assessment whenever anyone has the time. -- James26 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

    (assessed to C-class by Derild4921)

29. The Kane Chronicles - at least start-class for content and citations, in my opinion. But I'm involved, so I'd like someone else to assess. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

    (completed by Sadads)

30. Glen Downey (writer) - independent assessment of this article needed as it no longer seems to be stub class

    Upgraded to C. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 04:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

31. John Marsden (writer) - Independent assessment of this article requested - I've spent some time updating it. More to come but since I'm new here I'd like someone's assessment. Cheers. Also, would someone explain how the "Importance" criteria is assessed? Cheers. Teachingwedge (talk) 00:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

    Assessed at C-class. Good work. I'll leave some comments on the talk in the next day or two. Importance is normally decided by the subject's importance or notability in children's literature worldwide. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 01:38, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

32. Simone Elkeles: - I'd like it to get assessed to see what I can improve upon Tinytink (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

    Comments left on talk page. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 17:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

33. The Hunger Games trilogy - Currently Start-class; should be reassesed. Comments for improvement are welcome. --Glimmer721 ^talk 02:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

    C-class and comments left on talk. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 02:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

34. Goosebumps - May someone check this article against B-class criteria? Any suggestions are welcome. Fearstreetsaga (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

    updated to B. Strong article, especially the references. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

35. Chasing Vermeer - currently Start-class, I think it's a B. I'm working on getting this to GA (and then I can work on those terrible articles of the sequels) so suggestions are very welcome! Thanks, Glimmer721 ^talk 23:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

    B, although the prose needs some work. I understand that the plot is probably extremely complicated to summarize, but the current summary is almost too short to really be any good. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

36. Angelfire (novel series) -- I know this is C class or below, just wanted to reveal it in its current state. :) Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
37. Unearthly -- Maybe not my best work, but felt I'd reveal the current state. No rush. Thanks. James26 (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
38. Dead Beautiful -- Maybe not my best work, but felt I'd reveal the current state. No rush. Thanks. James26 (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
39. Horrible Histories: This article has been worked on for a while. The info is there... I think... but the format is all over the show. I think an assessment is on order, so we know where to go from here.--Coin945 (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
40. Roald Dahl Should be at least a B I think. sillybillypiggy^{¡SIGN NOW OR ELSE!} 16:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

    upgraded to b. I suggest considering GAN. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 18:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

41. The Strange Case of Origami Yoda -- Would appreciate any feedback or help getting this out of orphaned status. Not sure if it meets the Children's Lit. category / criteria. --Possum4all (talk) 01:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
42. Something Upstairs -- updated with detailed summary, character list, and list of awards AngusWOOF (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
43. The Son of Neptune has had a complete rewrite and according to some outside sources, it has a fair chance of becoming a GA. --Kangaroopowah 05:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

    upgraded to C. The most pressing issue I saw: cut down the plot summary. It is way too long. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 05:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

44. Beezus and Ramona This is my first effort to upgrade from start class, and I'd really appreciate some ideas on how it's going and what I should do next. Also, I have no idea if the plot summary is good or not. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

    Thanks very much for the expansion, I have upgraded it to a C. Rcsprinter (whisper) 17:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Awesome -- I was hoping for a C! Thanks so much for looking at it. Tlqk56 (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

45. Alice Dalgliesh I don't think is a stub any longer, if someone would please look at it for me. It doesn't have an image because I'm still in the process of figuring out how to do that. I will add one eventually, unless someone beats me to it. Thanks. Tlqk56 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
46. Alice's Adventures in Wonderland This is not my article, but I think it needs to be reassessed. It's on the list as being a C and needing references, but I believe it's been improved since then. I'm not qualified to change the rating myself. Tlqk56 (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
47. Wanda Gág Requesting assessment Dktrfz (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC) -->
48. Gathering Blue I have made several major edits to it. I don't know how to rate an article, and I would be biased rating one I have worked on. Thanks. LM103 (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
49. Stargirl: I recently did quite a bit of editing and clean-up on this article. It could probably still use some work, but it could stand to move up a class or two.--Redfive27 (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)