Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Literature

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Literature. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to literature, including his works and derivative works. The article ratings are used within the project itself to aid in recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPLIT}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Literature articles by quality and Category:Literature articles by importance.

Current ratings

edit
Literature articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 2 1 4 9 16
  FL 1 2 3 8 14
  GA 2 5 13 34 4 58
B 13 37 64 280 199 593
C 30 88 235 1,709 1 981 3,044
Start 19 102 268 4,918 3 2,518 7,828
Stub 3 20 48 2,572 2 1,410 4,055
List 5 9 40 1,307 9 234 1,604
Category 1 12,578 12,579
Disambig 18 18
File 1 84 85
Portal 573 573
Project 17 17
Template 2 791 793
NA 2 12 105 372 491
Other 216 216
Assessed 75 266 687 10,946 14,664 5,346 31,984
Unassessed 2 76 78
Total 75 266 687 10,948 14,664 5,422 32,062
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 77,529 Ω = 4.97

Frequently asked questions

edit
How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
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.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Literature WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
Where can I find articles to assess?
Many articles in Category:Literature need to be assessed and any articles in Category:Unassessed Literature articles and Category:Unknown-importance Literature articles.

If you have any other questions that aren't listed here, feel free to ask them at the talk page.

How to assess articles

edit

You can assess articles by placing the {{WPLIT}} banner on its talk page (not the article page!) and using the two parameters, class (to assess the quality) and importance (to assess the priority).

Quality assessments

edit

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Literature}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

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

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

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Literature articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Literature articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Literature articles) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Literature articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Literature articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Literature articles) Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Literature articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Literature articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Literature articles) ???

Quality scale

edit
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. 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
  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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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, 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. 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

Priority assessment

edit

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

{{Wikiproject Literature| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Priority scale

edit
Label Criteria Examples
Top Literature pages for languages spoken across many countries, regional literature that have a unified whole, pages about literature generally. Literatures from antiquity. Literature, History of literature, Western literature, English literature, Latin literature
High Literature pages for all other national languages or countries Belgian literature, Kazakh literature
Mid Regional literature Assamese literature, Texas literature
Low

Requesting an assessment

edit

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion or a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

Requested assessments

  1. Literary fragment Hello. I have been expanding this stub and am looking for someone to assess it. I appreciate your time. Thank you!Alsonamedbort15 (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Gothic double. Currently classified as a stub, I have expanded this article by 2600 words and added lots of credible references for a university assignment. I'm looking for someone to assess the article and hopefully move it to a higher classification. Thank you so much! Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 08:36, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Escapist fiction. Currently rated stub, I've recently edited and expanded this article for a university assignment. Looking for someone to assess and edit this article! Thank you for your time.BeePatella (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Vignette (literature). Currently rated stub. I've recently edited and expanded this article for a university assignment. I would be very grateful if someone could assess this article. Thank you! --Penceypug (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. An Address, to the Hon. Edmund Burke from the Swinish Multitude. - hako9 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Shanghai (novel). ZarhanFastfire (talk) 09:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Junction Chronicles. Currently rated Start. Having read the descriptions of Start, C, and B, I can't understand how Start applies to this article. But I normally work with film-related articles.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 17:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Abkhaz literature. Rated start. Has info and 2 sources, but no citations.Yobmod (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fan fiction Rated B. Lots of info, sourced, well presented and wikified.Yobmod (talk) 09:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Homosexuality in speculative fiction
  8. Samuel Johnson, Christopher Smart and their works Ottava Rima (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Rated a long time ago for other projects, for literature I'd put Johnson as Top and Smart as low'. Ktlynch (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Storytelling--I've rated as start, though I have trimmed the article of essay-like writing. I am more interested in an importance rating. --Call me Bubba (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hamamatsu Chūnagon Monogatari DoneKtlynch (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. León de Greiff. Not yet rated. mijotoba (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Low for his obscurity outside country of origin (though he looks quite interesting to me!) Ktlynch (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The London Jilt. Please assess. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC) C class for good sources and inline citations. Mid importance for an interesting, studied topic that is not that widely known. Ktlynch (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1 Needs prose review, spotchecks on sourcing and close paraphrasing checks. Jezhotwells (talk) 05:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Collaborative_fiction has no rating AdamCaputo (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Has been rated/assessed. INeverCry 19:05, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Shooting an Elephant has had some (significant) additions.--Skittles the hog (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC) I rated it C-class. I feel it has gaps that prevent it from reaching B class (most notably the lack of information about its reception). Greengreengreenred 03:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Khwaja Muhammad Latif Ansari
  17. John Banville has significant recent additions and has not been re-assessed for quality for four years. — O'Dea (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC) I re-rated this article c-class. This still needs a bit of work to get it to b-class; there are several citation-needed tags. INeverCry 17:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  18. English literature The current rating of "Start-class" seems somewhat unjust. Can it be updated? Rwood128 (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC) It has now been bumped up to C Class. That seems about right. --Ktlynch (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Women and children first - I'm just wondering if, as the phrase (and article topic) in question first appeared in a novel, would the article qualify for wikiproject literature? (Low importance, I'd imagine, but still...)--TyrS 16:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reassessed as c, adding project, Sadads (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. John Cowper Powys - This article has not been assessed. Rwood128 (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2014 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  2. James Hanley (novelist) -- Not assessed   Done
  3. Khwaja Muhammad Latif Ansari  Done
  4. Daniel Silva (novelist)--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)   Done[reply]
  5. Parnassus plays   Done
  6. Franz Kurowski
    Reassessed as B, substantially research, is thorough, probably needs peer review or GA review, for substantial feedback, Sadads (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Renée Vivien Prize (new article currently unassessed), Trauenbaum (talk) 16:42, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hawthorne and His Mosses, an important essay the writing of Moby-Dick was interrupted for. No quality reassessment request, but the Priority ranking Low done on May 31 needs reconsideration. For reasons, see the article's Talk Page.MackyBeth (talk) 18:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Philosophy of Composition by Poe does not have a banner at all yet, hence no assessment whatsoever.MackyBeth
  10. The Bridge on the Drina: rated Start Class, but upon recent expansion appears worthy of B. 23 editor (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 11:46, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Literature/Assessment&oldid=1221989233"