Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Assessment

message: May I suggest that we change the examples given in the Quality Scale to novels? Grey Shadow 11:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't be done, as this is a Wikipedia wide "Quality Scale" not just a WikiProject Novels scale. I have just transcluded it in here. I see what you are saying, purhaps you could think up a few example and we could put them as a small project specific addendum below the full table. Good idea though. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having looked at the general descriptions on the quality scale, I think that quite a few novel articles rated as "start" should actually be classified as "b"... if anone wants to talk me out of changing a bunch of them or ask me for further justification of my position, please do.  I won't jump headlong into this right away, but possibly soon. Matt Kurz 16:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly happy with that, different people have slight different perspectives on this, also the articles are in a constant state of flux and the situations may well have changed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 10:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quality scale

message: "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)"
does this actually mean need (like for a school report, etc) or does it include what people merely want to look up? for example, i'm willing to bet that rosemary's baby (rated mid), being the basis for a very popular horror movie, would get more hits than lucky jim (rated high). --dan 02:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear what you are saying, I would say the need and numerous people wanting would both qualify. We will need to adjust the form of waord to suit a recognition of the this. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 05:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have voiced my dissatisfaction with the rating scheme presented here at Talk:Last Seen Wearing ... (Hillary Waugh novel). <KF> 23:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ah, I didn't get that importance was a part of the WP 1.0 project as a way of deciding what gets in the encyclopedia.  I'm still not crazy about it, but I guess it makes sense.  TheronJ 16:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Another way of looking at this is to remember that importance rating stuff goes on the talk page and is not in the article namespace -- it's just for prioritizing project tasks, not to tell "readers" whether an article is "important" or not  If they looked it up in the first place, it's likely important to them anyway.Matt Kurz 16:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think "importance" is a very bad idea, even if it's just a way of deciding inclusions in the encyclopedia. It LOOKS terribly bad when you bump into the entry for a book and see that someone, somewhere, has decided that it is "of low importance". It looks bad because it isn't clear, nay, it is an obscure reference, and it may even smell of cultural discrimination. Leobot 08:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole of life envolves discrimination, you have discriminated in the above statement. Bear in mind the response above about it being a talk page, i.e. opinion and editorial aid based namespace matter. All it is an attempt to find some sense of "priority" in workload and scaling of notability. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: BTW, I think it is really important what novels we choose to be Top-important. These will most certainly need to be included in Wikipedia v1.0, and work should focus on those novels. We need not be shy in naming a novel Top-important, otherwise literature would be represented in a lesser degree than other topics. On the other hand, we do need to be cautious to name something Top-important, because the importance scale should resemble something of a pyramid. I'll set up a subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important for discussion of the current Top-important novels, and possible candidates. Errabee 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the view on how many books should go into this category? should it be a list of a few dozen, few hundred, few thousand? I think it would be possible to put thousands of novels into the top category (there must by now be millions of novels in existence). Is this a comprehensive list, or a manageable recommended reading list? The test of whether something has been translated seems a good starting point, but again must inevitably lead to thousands of candidates. If this list does become size limited, then how do we choose between those books which are  accepted classics written some time ago, and those which are current best sellers. The current books would almost certainly fill the list on grounds of availablity, but might still be worse choices. Somewhere I read a story about the Harry Potter books, that the first three books had permanently filled the top three slots in the US best sellers list, so the list compilers were forced to create a new list of 'childrens' books, just to get them out of the adult chart.Sandpiper 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some very good questions. I would prefer to limit the list to a maximum of two (in exceptional cases three) novels per author in order to make sure the list is diverse enough. Errabee 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to agree. An author being rated as significant in themselves, does not necessarily mean every single novel by that author should be rated of top importance. It would be better to pick only the key one or two for which they are the best known or had the most influence. Silverthorn 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance criteria 

message: As a new member of the project, I'm sometime finding it difficult to rate the importance, and certainly do not entirely understand the rationale behind the importance of novels as they are now. As such, I feel the need for some (semi-)objective criteria to rate the importance. Here are some thoughts I have (and please consider this a way to start a discussion):
* Many countries have major novelists: Charles Dickens and Jane Austen for the UK, James Joyce for Ireland, Ernest Hemingway and John Steinbeck for the USA, Aleksandr Pushkin, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky (and several others) for Russia) (I'm biased for Russian literature, sorry). 
* The major works (magnum opus, perhaps several) from these writers should be labeled as Top-important, as they are known (and translated) throughout the world. These works have made a strong impression on the world and other literature. This would include Oliver Twist, A Christmas Carol, Pride and Prejudice, Sense and Sensibility, Ulysses, The Old Man and the Sea, The Grapes of Wrath, East of Eden, Eugene Onegin, The Captain's Daughter, War and Peace, Anna Karenina, Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov.
* Lesser known works (ok, not entirely objective) from these writers should be labeled as High-importance, simply because they are written by that writer. translations into other languages should be readily available. These would include David Copperfield, Bleak House, Mansfield Park, Queen of Spades, The Kreutzer Sonata, The Gambler and The Idiot.
* Other works, even more obscure, for which translations are hard or impossible to find, should be labeled as Mid-important. Books from these writers can hardly be Low-important, as they are almost always of interest for the literary society.
* Sometimes novels can gain importance because a film adaptation is made. If that film has won an Academy Award in a category involving the script or in general best (foreign) film, and the book is equally well-known as the film, the corresponding novel should gain Top-importance. Examples include All Quiet on the Western Front, The Assault, Around the World in Eighty Days and The Godfather.  
* If the film winning the award is obviously more notable than the book, it should nevertheless gain importance, but not necessarily to Top-importance. Examples would include (oh dear, I hope I'm not insulting people here): From Here to Eternity, The Silence of the Lambs and The Cider House Rules.
* If the film was nominated but did not win, should also raise the importance of the novel. 
Remember, I only write this to provoke a constructive discussion, and I would appreciate comments on my thoughts. Errabee 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I think it is really important what novels we choose to be Top-important. These will most certainly need to be included in Wikipedia v1.0, and work should focus on those novels. We need not be shy in naming a novel Top-important, otherwise literature would be represented in a lesser degree than other topics. On the other hand, we do need to be cautious to name something Top-important, because the importance scale should resemble something of a pyramid. I'll set up a subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment/Top-important for discussion of the current Top-important novels, and possible candidates. Errabee 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the view on how many books should go into this category? should it be a list of a few dozen, few hundred, few thousand? I think it would be possible to put thousands of novels into the top category (there must by now be millions of novels in existence). Is this a comprehensive list, or a manageable recommended reading list? The test of whether something has been translated seems a good starting point, but again must inevitably lead to thousands of candidates. If this list does become size limited, then how do we choose between those books which are  accepted classics written some time ago, and those which are current best sellers. The current books would almost certainly fill the list on grounds of availablity, but might still be worse choices. Somewhere I read a story about the Harry Potter books, that the first three books had permanently filled the top three slots in the US best sellers list, so the list compilers were forced to create a new list of 'childrens' books, just to get them out of the adult chart.Sandpiper 12:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some very good questions. I would prefer to limit the list to a maximum of two (in exceptional cases three) novels per author in order to make sure the list is diverse enough. Errabee 13:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to agree. An author being rated as significant in themselves, does not necessarily mean every single novel by that author should be rated of top importance. It would be better to pick only the key one or two for which they are the best known or had the most influence. Silverthorn 13:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Objective criteria

message: "Subject is a "core" topic for literature, or is highly notable to people other than students of literature. 	
War and Peace
The Lord of the Rings
Pride and Prejudice
High - Subject is more notable or significant within the field of literature and outside it. 	
The Name of the Rose
Lucky Jim
Jonathan Livingston Seagull
Mid - Subject is notable or significant within the field of literature (or to a historian), but not necessarily outside it. 	
Brighton Rock
Rosemary's Baby
The Body in the Library"
Jonathan Livingston Seagull, of which I have just been made aware, ranks higher here than one of the core works of one of the more important 20th century novelists, Mr. Greene? I've heard more about Rosemary's Baby than this seagull book, though only through the associated motion picture. 
In regards to the The Lord of the Rings and the inevitable Harry Potter question, works which are quite spuriously rated among Tolstoy, is it possible that they should belong to another list or category entirely, one that would focus on volume of pages sold rather than the enjoyment or study of serious literature? As it stands now, this category of "Literature" serves two masters. I'd also like to point out that contrary to what many have written about "students of literature", there does yet exist that mythical beast--the common reader--though perhaps dying out.
--24.131.209.132 16:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind that this importance (or more helpfully "Priority" is a rating not of the standard of the literature, but an internal assessment of how importance and article is to have included or comprehensive article within such an online encyclopedia. It is a guide to editor on how much effort to put into getting these ready for WP:1.0. Hope that helps. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who wrote this? 

message: Should any of the following be of top importance?
#Erast Fandorin
#Max Havelaar
#My Name is Red
#No Great Mischief
#Pigeon Post
#Swallows and Amazons
#The Assault
#The Chrysalids
#The Fall
#Titus Groan
Note the following relatively random sample of works which are not currently ranked at top importance, all of which I would consider of considerably greater importance than any of the above (Most of which I had not even heard of, with the exception of the Camus, Titus Groan, and My Name is Red):
#A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man
#A Tale of Two Cities
#Absalom, Absalom!
#As I Lay Dying
#Barchester Towers (or anything else by Trollope)
#Buddenbrooks
#Cousin Bette
#Emma
#Finnegans Wake
#Germinal (or anything else by Zola)
#Great Expectations
#Heart of Darkness
#Howard's End
#Invisible Man
#Ivanhoe
#Kim
#Lost Illusions
#Mansfield Park
#Moll Flanders
#Native Son
#Notes from Underground
#Pale Fire
#Pamela
#Père Goriot
#Persuasion
#Sense and Sensibility
#Silas Marner
#Sons and Lovers
#Tess of the d'Urbervilles
#The Betrothed
#The Castle
#The Charterhouse of Parma
#The Devils
#The Great Gatsby
#The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling
#The Idiot
#The Magic Mountain
#The Pickwick Papers
#The Red and the Black
#The Return of the Native
#The Scarlet Letter
#The Sound and The Fury
#The Sun Also Rises
#Things Fall Apart
#The Tin Drum
#To the Lighthouse
#Tristram Shandy
#Vanity Fair
#Waverley
And that's just a vague assortment off the top of my head.  john k 18:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I think I would prefer Death in Venice for Buddenbrooks. Errabee 23:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird top importance novels 

message: I'd like to start reviewing unassessed articles, but I'm a bit bewildered by the  template.  How do you change the bit that says "The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet" to reflect that there are comments?  Following the link and creating a new page does not do it.  Sorry to be such a dunce!  -- Merope Talk 22:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a problem/bug with templates; they sometimes get updated only after the page they're on has been edited. Errabee 22:31, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So what you're saying is I'm not an idiot?  ... I just edited the page and the template worked!  Thank you! -- Merope Talk 22:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Help with reviewing 

message: Buddenbrooks 
The Secret Agent
The Rainbow 
Women in Love 
The Glass Bead Game
The Radetzky March
My Ántonia
The Age of Innocence 
As I Lay Dying 
Call It Sleep 
princess de cleves
Notes from Underground 
The Idiot
The Devils
Death in Venice
Buddenbrooks
The Castle
Moll Flanders
Humphry Clinker
Rameau's Nephew
Manon Lescaut
Candide
Elective Affinities
Wilhelm Meister's Apprenticeship 
Wilhelm Meister's Years of Wandering 
The House by the Medlar Tree
Fortunata and Jacinta 
La Regenta
The Maias
Adolphe
Sentimental Education
L'Assommoir
The Heart of Midlothian
Jane Eyre
A Hero of Our Time
Billy Budd
Little Women
The Red Badge of Courage 
The Confession of Zeno
The Immoralist
Our Lady of the Flowers
Nausea 
Effi Briest
Lazarillo de Tormes
Radetzky March
Romance of the Three Kingdoms
Simplicissimus
Water Margin
The Home and the World
Journey to the West
Dream of the Red Chamber
Gargantua and Pantagruel
Gil Blas 
Snow Country
The moon and the bonfires 
The Setting Sun
The Silent Cry
The Makioka Sisters
The Temple of the Golden Pavilion
Just off my head. Mandel 09:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe - but it is not a Novel or even prose. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More top class important books

message: Could someone please review the assessment of this article.  It's rated as stub-class but the article is very substantial, nothing like a stub at all.  Also, though this is more subjective, it's rated low-importance which doesn't seem so nice.  The novel was quite popular in Germany, was translated into many languages and made into a film, the author was one of Germany's best-known childrens' writers, and the book itself has apparently been influential.  67.117.130.181 22:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: resassesed on request- although this could have gone on the main page. Ressigned Start as it is more than the most basic of articles, also it has been adapted a few times which suggests more natability. However do note that this aspect should be based on the notability of the article's subject and there is little in the article on this subject. "==Literary significance & criticism==" section should be provided to give more credance to the article and it's accurate rating. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Momo (novel)]] 

message: It is assessed as the greatest novel of China all the time by most Chinese scholars. Why it only rated as Mid-importance here? Yao Ziyuan 10:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Raised to High and comments on rationale left with the novel. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest this as top importance, you can do some Google research, this is widely considered as Chinese novel number one. Yao Ziyuan 11:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't necessarily disagree with the assignment - however you miss the point. The article does not demonstrate the notability or importance of the novel it only states it. I have added a few "cite needed" tags where I think some extra referencing is needed. I nearly added a WP:OR notice as it has all those hallmarks. Agreed there is a set of references. The problem is that there is no clear linkage between the references and what is stated in the article. If this is as inmportant a novel as you claim (and I don't doubt it) then it deserves a detailed, comprehensive, well researched and documented article. It's is close but just needs a little bit more work. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. The article is still poor developed. Those I have claimed were from others' reviews. Unfortunately, I've never actually read it, so I might not help too much on this novel. Yao Ziyuan 14:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dream of the Red Chamber]] 

message: I changed the assessment to my understanding of Chinese literature and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Importance_scale. I know many average westerners might be know little about Chinese literature as well as Chinese novels, so you might never heard of some very famous novels. That doesn't matter. It is due to the gap between western and eastern cultures. Comments are always welcome. Yao Ziyuan 12:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be good if you could use the :Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment/Top-important page to discuss the assignment to Top importance. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've changed some assessment for Chinese novels 

message: 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). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of literature.''
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). 
Why is this criteria set? How do you "gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic"?  Note this is the 'Importance scale', not the "bestseller scale". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.49.48 (talk • contribs) 
:The word "importance" slightly unfortunate (some project use "priority") the intention is to assess the relative importance of having an article in wikipedia, so yes bestseller, awards, etc and all other aspects of notability defined more comprehensively elsewhere are a factor. Determining what these are based on verifiable information available may be another issue. But that is the aim. Not "purely" literary merit. Which is in itself to some extent subjective. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 07:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic

message: Hi all. I was wondering if people consider encyclopedic content when rating the quality of articles on books. Many books have overly detailed plot summaries, which is not within the scope of Wikipedia articles. Some articles are little more than plot summaries. I didn't see a mention of this anywhere, and I was just hoping that encyclopedic content would be factored in to the quality assessment. Thanks. ~MDD4696 14:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic content 

message: Camus' novel The Plague has been selected for this month's :Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration.  Since it is rated Top-importance by Project Novels, I hope you'll be able to help! --EncycloPetey 19:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Plague]] 

message: In the last week, I have found major sections in the articles on :Midnight's Children and :Adam Bede to be direct and literal copies from  Gradesaver and similar sources,  available online, & actually cited and linked on the face of the article. (identified material has been removed, and the person inserting it warned.)   There is a characteristic writing style in study guides such as these, presumably designed to impress teachers when submitted as essays. Only the most careless of teachers would be deceived when the material is used without modification--and it looks like WP is about as careless as any. These were the first two articles I checked, and a number of people have edited the article over many months without noticing. I urge editors in this project to check the articles they are working on.  I intend to continue looking from time to time but do not want to take this burden for the entire content of this project. DGG (talk) 03:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright warning

message: You know that point where you just start clicking on any link shown and have no idea what's happening and start to panic? That's what I get for trying to read the instructions to do it myself. I'm trying to request another peer review for To Kill a Mockingbird. I've never archived and moved stuff, so I don't know what I've done. This makes me feel like my dad, shouting instructions at the monitor...I'm so much more hip than this, really!! Help! --Moni3 13:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, you will need to look at the Novels Peer Review page for instructions. Have a look and then ask again if things are unclear. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, I did that. It's been reviewed at least twice before, so I think I have a double redirect to the archive page. I had to give up and ask you fine folks because I don't get what I'm doing, and too much reading of Wikipedia instructions and bits of my brain fly out of my ears and hit the wall next to where I sit. --Moni3 14:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help moving or archiving...I think... 

message: Does this term mean review-critics or scholarly-critics or both? I've been adding lists of scholarly studies to author and book pages (especially those needing evidence of notability), but I'm not sure how I should label the section: Scholarly articles? Critical studies? Aristophanes68 (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see that the "critical" is further qualified so all types would be included. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

text: *Groovy! Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Critical reception 

message: Assessment is waste of time that would be better spent improving articles. EdQuine (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Assessment plays an important part in project maintenance, not only for the WikiProject but for the entire encyclopedia.  You're more than welcome to improve articles and not assess them; just don't be surprised if someone steps in and does it for you. :)  María (habla conmigo) 14:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless

message: I noticed The Slap was rated as low importance and given it just won the Commonwealth Writers Prize I felt it deserved at least mid so increase it. I then checked last years The Book of Negroes (novel) which to my surprise was also low as was Mister Pip although the The Secret River is mid. I know we aren't talking about the Man Booker Prize but do others agree that any book having won the Commonwealth Writers Prize is likely automatically entitled to a minimum of mid or am I completely off base here and do others feel it isn't sufficient in itself (I don't do assessments and am not really a participant in any wikiproject)? Nil Einne (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would encourage you to get as involved as you are able. We need those who can spot things like this. I would agree and will change those you mentioned. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Browsing through this discussion page I see a farrago of disagreements based on subjective judgements. The very idea of rating novels according to the undefined (and undefinable) term "Importance" is not helpful in any way to users of an encyclopedia, and is in conflict with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. It should be discontinued. Ericlord (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that importance ratings go on the talk page, and not the article page, their purpose is not to be helpful to users, but to be helpful to editors, and particularly, to be useful to editors of this project in terms of prioritizing work.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. john k (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't have said it better John! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

message: I just tried my first assessment (The Faerie Wars Chronicles) and changing the class on the talk was fine, but it didn't change on the main page (the tag that says "a -class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Did I do something wrong? Oh, and feel free to change the assessment if you think it's wrong! PrincessofLlyr (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It sometimes happens. You didn't do anything wrong. Its just that Wikipedia's server have not recognised the change yet. You can force it to change by purging the page (IE: hold down the Ctrl key and click the Refresh or Reload button. Firefox: Ctrl-Shift-R. Konqueror and Safari: Just click the Reload button. Extremepro (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First assessment question 

message: The Monthly changes section is missing C-scale articles. Can this be added in? Derild4921 00:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, probably, but that table hasn't been updated since 2007, so is it really worth it? PrincessofLlyr royal court 01:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, that probably won't matter then! Derild4921 01:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I updated it in Feb '09, give me some credit! ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:51, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monthly Changes 

message: I have been waiting about two days to get a rating for an article I submitted. No one is repling. Can someone do that please? I would be very grateful. Cheers! UserDarkJak495 talk orange 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, we are a little light on the manpower right now, and Wiki discussion speed can be atrociously slow because many of us are busy in our real lives as well. Sorry about that, Sadads (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Little Problem

message: Can someone rank my article? I would really appreciate it. Cheers!UserDarkJak495 talk orange 12:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, relax. Updating the assessment of an article really isn't that big of a deal. Also, there's not a lot that has significantly changed since the last assessment, meaning that the class hasn't really changed. Keep working, but you probably don't have to worry about requesting the assessment here - several people are watching the article and probably would be willing to update the assessment when appropriate. PrincessofLlyr royal court 13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Hi

message: In high importance we have 8 articles, including a Hardy Boys. In core we have only 3. I think that Stephen Crane's The Red Badge of Courage is of greater literary importance than the Hardy Boys; the same with Ernest Hemingway's The Sun Also Rises. I think we should re-think these designations. Thoughts? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what categories to which you are referring: :Category:High-importance novel articles seems to have 962 articles. By 'core', are you referring to :Category:Top-importance novel articles (which has 125 articles)? maclean (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That wasn't very clear. I was referring to the FA class articles linked on the table here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My thoughts on the 'importance' designations is that they are inherently subjective. I am not aware of any criteria that makes one Top and the other High. I guess if there was a real criteria, the 'importance' would be a mainspace category, not a Wikiproject category. It is my understanding that the 'importance' designations were originally conceived as a priorty setting mechanism for WikiProjects to follow (work on the High importance articles first, then the Medium important ones). My preference is to remove the 'importance' designations categories altogether. As I find the WikiProject Importance categories irrelevant to the WikiProject and otherwise trivial, I, for one, have no objection to moving the proposed articles to the proposed importance categories. -maclean (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes a lot of sense. I never understood how they were designated, but if based on work-to-be-done, then yes, makes a lot of sense. In that case, since the two I've noted are finished, they should be demoted in importance rather than promoted. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance question 

message: Should editors who do not belong to this WikiProject or one of its task forces sometimes edit a Talk page to allocate an article about a book? Or always place the {Books} project banner where there is none —the most general if i understand correctly?
Should we sometimes edit a Talk page to revise quality assessment? For example, revise class=Stub to class=Start or even to class=C? If not that, what about revise class=Stub to class= [unassessed]?
I do edit Article categories and stub tags, of course. And I do edit the Talk page project banners on technical points such as needs-infobox and needs-infobox-cover. --P64 (talk) 19:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I see that Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature#Assessing articles clearly welcomes everyone to place the banner and to assess: "Any user can add ... Any user can assess ...". --P64 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  {Novels} banner and basic assessment