(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Romance/Assessment - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Romance/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

Welcome to the WikiProject Romance Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Romance. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's fictional romance 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.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Romance}} talk page project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Romance articles by quality and Category:Romance articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

TIP: If you would like to participate in assessment activities, you may find it helpful to turn on a metadata script that displays an article's assessment when you are viewing any article. In order to do that, click on your "My preferences" link at the top of the page, then the Gadgets category, and check the box under Appearance for "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article."

Current Status

[edit]
Romance articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 1 2 3 6 12
FL 1 2 3
GA 2 4 6 24 8 44
B 4 12 12 27 13 68
C 15 40 72 156 103 386
Start 10 32 72 515 242 871
Stub 3 25 203 102 333
List 31 14 45
NA 6 1,079 1,085
Assessed 32 94 190 970 1,079 482 2,847
Unassessed 5 5
Total 32 94 190 970 1,079 487 2,852
WikiWork factors (?) ωおめが = 8,189 Ωおめが = 4.78

update

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Romance}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
Someone put a {{WikiProject Romance}} template on an article, but it's not a romance related article. What should I do?
If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (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 WikiProject Romance is free to add or change the rating of an article, except for GA and FA.
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.
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here.
What if I have a question not listed here?
If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page for this department; for any other issues, you can ask them on the main project general forum page, or contact one of the other members directly.

Instructions

[edit]

Quality

[edit]

Romance articles to be assessed have some aspects of the {{WikiProject Romance}} template on their talk page, but the template may be incomplete. Select an article from the list at Category:Unassessed romance articles. Then, look over the article in anticipation of filling out the parameters of the {{WikiProject Romance}} template. Finally, add in the proper parameters to the talk page template, as outlined below.

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Romance}} 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 romance articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class romance articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class romance articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class romance articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class romance articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class romance articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class romance articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class romance articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class romance articles) List

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

NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class romance articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed romance articles) ???

Quality scale

[edit]

The scale for assessments is defined at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Articles are divided into the following categories.

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.
Georgette Heyer (as of June 2015)
 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 works by Georgette Heyer (as of June 2015)
 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.
(as of March 2010)
 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.
(Lady of Quality as of March 2015)
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.
Jane Austen (as of June 2015)
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.
Emma (novel) (as of June 2015)
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.
Peggy Webb (as of June 2015)
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.
Leah Ashton (as of June 2015)
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.
(as of December 2010)

These criteria apply to general-content articles. The style guidelines provides additional guidelines about what sorts of content and formatting should be provided for certain articles.

Each romance-related article has its assessment included within the {{WikiProject Romance}} template, such as {{WikiProject Romance|class=B}}. This provides automatic categorization within Category:Romance articles by quality. Note that the class parameter is case-specific; see the template's documentation for more information.

B-Class criteria

[edit]

Special emphasis is given to the six criteria that B-Class articles for the WikiProject should meet:

B
  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.


Importance

[edit]

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

{{WikiProject Romance|importance=???}}

The following values may be used for the importance parameter to describe the relative importance of the article within the project (see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Priority of topic for assessment criteria):

Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance romance articles)  Top 
High (adds articles to Category:High-importance romance articles)  High 
Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance romance articles)  Mid 
Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance romance articles)  Low 
NA (adds articles to Category:NA-importance romance articles)  NA 
??? (articles for which a valid importance rating has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance romance articles)  ??? 

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA and should be omitted in those cases. Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance romance articles.


Importance scale

[edit]

Importance must be regarded as a relative term. Importance values only reflect the perceived importance to this project. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in our project may be only "Mid-Class" in another project. The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). The criteria used for rating article importance are meant to be a probable indication of how significant the topic is to fictional romance on a whole, 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. Also, please rate it by the objective criteria below, not on subjective criteria like whether or not you've heard of them, or you like or dislike their work. The importance scale is not a popularity contest, but rather a way for us to prioritize articles in our scope.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a "core" topic for romance as a field. Should be articles necessary to understanding the genre (and its evolution) as a whole. A good guide would be any subject mentioned in a published essay that talks about the history of the genre. No member should give this rating to any romance article without first getting Project approval from the other members. Nora Roberts
Romance novel (and its major subgenres)
Kathleen Woodiwiss
The Flame and the Flower
Harlequin
RITA Award
High Subject is very notable or significant within the field of romance and is of interest to those outside of the field. A subject mentioned in a book on the history of the genre most likely falls here. These would include RITA award-winning novels, any novel that was in the top 5 (not as part of a boxed set or anthology) on the NYT bestseller list , or any novel that was adapted by a major studio or television network. Authors who have won multiple notable awards, especially those in the RWA Hall of Fame, or who have had multiple bestsellers on notable bestseller lists like New York Times and USAToday (not Amazon) and didn't land there as part of a boxed set. This includes the next tier of major publishers - Avon, for example. Avon
J.R. Ward
Bet Me
Mansfield Park
Jennifer Crusie
Outlander (novel)
Mid Subject is notable or significant within the field of romance, but not necessarily outside of the field. Novels that won other awards (besides the RITA); novels that were between 6-20 on the NYT Bestseller List or in the top 20 of the USA Today bestseller list ; novels that were made into a direct-to-tv/cable movie. Authors who have won one RITA or had one bestseller that was not in a boxed set make a major bestseller list (A bestseller list only counts if it's the subject of a Wikipedia article). Ellora's Cave
Carolyn Crane
Linda Barlow
The Secrets of Sir Richard Kenworthy
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of romance, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage in relation to some other notable article. This would also include anyone who might be more notable in another field or genre, but doesn't meet the above criteria in romance. Sharp Edges
Pamela Aidan

Requesting an assessment

[edit]

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 at the bottom of the list.
Note: This is only to rate the article on quality - you will probably not get feedback on the article.
If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

If you assess an article, please remove it so others will not waste time reviewing the same article(s). It is also helpful to leave a brief note on article's talk, under a heading "B-class review", stating why the article was failed (or that it was reviewed and passed). Make sure to check the overview on how to assess a Romance article for details on how to assess. Thanks!

Articles submitted here will not be rated above 'B'; see Wikipedia:Good articles and Wikipedia:Featured articles for higher assessments.
Edit this section and place request here:

  1. Kurt Seyit ve Şura – Needs an importance assessment. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment log

[edit]
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

November 5, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]
  • WP:Romance (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

November 4, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]
  • Ally McBeal (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to High-Class. (rev · t)
  • Sunrise Alley (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

[edit]

November 2, 2024

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 1, 2024

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Romance/Assessment&oldid=843668434"