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
[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:
- 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
[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.
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
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.
|
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) |
![]() |
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:
|
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) |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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.
- King & King R.dever (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC) R.dever
- Mom's Cancer 00:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
- Space Demons, Clarkkent1234 (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- Margaret Hamilton (publisher) KL852 (talk) 23:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC) KL852
- The Three Doors I have expanded the article quite a bit, and it would be greatly appreciated if someone could reassess it, thank you. Huey117 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keeper of the Lost Cities This page has gone through quite a few changes, just wanted to have it reassessed, if possible. PyrokineticFintan (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, This page has not been assessed in 12 years, and quite a few edits have been made, PyrokineticFintan (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Current article statistics
[edit]Children and young adult literature articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
4 | 8 | 12 | 6 | 30 | ||
![]() |
2 | 7 | 1 | 10 | |||
![]() |
9 | 33 | 80 | 94 | 216 | ||
B | 25 | 74 | 179 | 226 | 9 | 513 | |
C | 24 | 172 | 796 | 1,512 | 21 | 2,525 | |
Start | 18 | 272 | 1,995 | 5,491 | 49 | 7,825 | |
Stub | 1 | 83 | 673 | 4,858 | 23 | 5,638 | |
List | 3 | 8 | 86 | 173 | 3 | 273 | |
Category | 1 | 1 | 1,230 | 1,232 | |||
Disambig | 1 | 4 | 71 | 76 | |||
File | 1 | 2,721 | 2,722 | ||||
Portal | 41 | 41 | |||||
Project | 1 | 45 | 46 | ||||
Template | 2 | 329 | 331 | ||||
NA | 1 | 4 | 75 | 936 | 837 | 1,853 | |
Other | 1 | 2 | 14 | 17 | |||
Assessed | 87 | 657 | 3,904 | 13,307 | 5,288 | 105 | 23,348 |
Unassessed | 4 | 30 | 34 | ||||
Total | 87 | 657 | 3,904 | 13,311 | 5,288 | 135 | 23,382 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 85,031 | Ω = 5.08 |