Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature


Welcome to the assessment department of the Children's Literature WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's children and young adult literature 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.



Contact with WP Children's literature
See also: assessed article categories. Last update: June 8, 2008


Children and young adult literature
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 7 5 13
Good article GA 4 3 7 4 18
B 2 14 22 9 47
Start 4 48 168 75 295
Stub 3 17 535 645 1200
List 1 1 22 24
Assessed 14 89 738 734 22 1597
Unassessed 1050 1050
Total 14 89 738 734 1072 2647

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
Someone put a {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} template on an article, but it doesn't seem appropriate. What should I do?
If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of the project (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 Children's Literature 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!
What if I have a question not listed here?
Leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Children's literature.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Children'sLiteratureWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:

{{NovelsWikiProject| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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.

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. Tourette Syndrome (as of July 2007)
Featured list FL
{{FL-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A
{{A-Class}}		 Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Durian (as of March 2007)
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}		 The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class. Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B
{{B-Class}}		 Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and references.
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
  • a particularly 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
 Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage. Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}		 The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. Coffee table book (as of July 2005)


[edit] 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.

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
Top Subject is a "core" topic for literature.
High Subject is very notable or significant within its field of literature.
Mid Subject is notable or significant within the field of literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it.
Low Subject is not particularly notable (but notable enough to be included on Wikipedia) 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.


[edit] Requesting an assessment

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. (Note that this is not required; any editor may assess or re-assess an article on their own, if acting in good faith.)

If you assess an article, please strike it off so that other editors will not waste time going there too. Comments are not mandatory and any should be left at the article's talk page; the list below will be wiped periodically.

  1. Lord of the flies
  2. Bows Against the Barons (previously rated as stub/low)
  3. Fly by Night—Should be at least Start class IMO me_and (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Verdigris Deep—As above me_and (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Add new requests above this line

If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please list it at Wikipedia:Good article nominations instead.