Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature
WikiProject Children's Literature
The WikiProject
Project page talk
Members talk
Open Tasks talk
Children's Literature Portal talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Collaboration talk
Outreach talk
Newsletter talk
Current discussions
Project discussion forum (+)
 talk
Article discussion forum (+)
 talk
Work in progress
Article alerts talk
Cleanup listing talk
Infobox needed talk
Unassessed quality articles talk
Unassessed importance articles talk
Unreferenced BLPs talk
Stub articles talk
Related task forces
39 Clues task force talk
CHERUB and Henderson's Boys task force talk
Chronicles of Narnia task force talk
His Dark Materials task force talk
Lemony Snicket task force talk
Percy Jackson task force talk
Roald Dahl task force talk
Twilight task force talk
Templates
Template guidance talk
All templates talk
Project banner talk
Member Userbox talk
Welcome message talk
Collaboration alerts talk
This box:
• changes

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

edit

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

edit

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

Assessment Criteria

edit

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


Quality scale

edit

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.

  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

Importance scale

edit

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

edit

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.

Current article statistics

edit
Children and young adult literature articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 4 8 13 6 31
  FL 2 7 1 10
  GA 9 33 79 96 217
B 25 73 180 224 9 511
C 24 175 803 1,541 25 2,568
Start 18 267 2,001 5,567 1 53 7,907
Stub 1 87 666 4,776 24 5,554
List 3 8 86 172 3 272
Category 1 1,355 1,356
Disambig 76 76
File 2,707 2,707
Portal 41 41
Project 46 46
Template 332 332
NA 1 3 73 975 841 1,893
Other 14 14
Assessed 87 655 3,908 13,358 5,413 114 23,535
Unassessed 1 7 8
Total 87 655 3,908 13,359 5,413 121 23,543
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 85,098 Ω = 5.07
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Children%27s_literature/Assessment&oldid=1249554552"