Welcome to theassessment department of WikiProject Literature. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related toliterature, 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 ofCategory:Literature articles by quality andCategory:Literature articles by importance.

Literature articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	3	1	4	9			17
FL	1	2	3	8			14
GA	1	5	15	42		7	70
B	14	41	74	303	1	220	653
C	32	93	247	1,835		1,017	3,224
Start	21	100	270	5,202	3	2,581	8,177
Stub	1	23	51	2,529	1	1,396	4,001
List	5	10	42	1,330	9	233	1,629
Category					18,949		18,949
Disambig					18		18
File					96		96
Portal					573		573
Project					17		17
Template					796		796
NA		2	13	115	413		543
Other			1	2	259		262
Assessed	78	277	720	11,375	21,135	5,454	39,039
Unassessed				3		107	110
Total	78	277	720	11,378	21,135	5,561	39,149
WikiWork factors (?)		ω =79,880			Ω = 4.95

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in thesection 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 thesection 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 inCategory:Literature need to be assessed and any articles inCategory:Unassessed Literature articles andCategory:Unknown-importance Literature articles.

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

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

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the|class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the{{WikiProject Literature}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (seeWikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA	(forfeatured articlesonly; adds them to theFA-Class Literature articles category)		FA
FL	(forfeatured listsonly; adds them to theFL-Class Literature articles category)		FL
A	(for articles that passed a formalpeer reviewonly; adds them to theA-Class Literature articles category)		A
GA	(forgood articlesonly; adds them to theGA-Class Literature articles category)		GA
B	(for articles that satisfy all of theB-Class criteria; adds them to theB-Class Literature articles category)		B
C	(for substantial articles; adds them to theC-Class Literature articles category)		C
Start	(for developing articles; adds them to theStart-Class Literature articles category)		Start
Stub	(for basic articles; adds them to theStub-Class Literature articles category)		Stub
List	(forstand-alone lists; adds them to theList-Class Literature articles category)		List
NA	(for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to theNA-Class Literature pages category)		NA
???	(articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in theUnassessed Literature articles category)		???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

Class	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA	The article has attainedfeatured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured article criteria: Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting thepolicies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims areverifiable against high-qualityreliable sources and are supported by inline citationswhere appropriate; neutral: it presents viewsfairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoingedit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant withWikipedia's copyright policy and free ofplagiarism ortoo-close paraphrasing. It follows thestyle guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a conciselead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchicalsection headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—seeciting sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It hasimages and other media, where appropriate, with succinctcaptions andacceptable copyright status. Images follow theimage use policy.Non-free images or media must satisfy thecriteria for inclusion of non-free content andbe labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and usessummary 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 attainedfeatured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaginglead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements aresourced where they appear, and they provideinline citations if they contain any of thefour kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements forstand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate thecontent-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful,section headings andtable sort facilities. Style. It complies with theManual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a)Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting,tables, andcolour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b)Media files. It hasimages and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia'susage policies, with succinctcaptions.Non-free images and other media satisfy thecriteria for the inclusion of non-free content andare labeled accordingly. (c)Accessibility. Ituses proper formating to beaccessible to all readers.Bulleted and unbulleted lists andtables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilizealternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoingedit 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 theA-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described inWikipedia: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 afeatured 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 meetsall of thegood article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers fromWP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria Agood article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation. Verifiable withno original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline; reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould 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); it containsno original research; and it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses themain aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoingedit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio: media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content; and media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable 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 existingfeatured 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 meetsall of theB-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reachgood article standards. More detailed criteria The article issuitably referenced, withinline citations. It hasreliable sources, and any important or controversial material which islikely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of<ref> tags andcitation templates such as{{cite web}} is optional. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for anA-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including alead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to beof the standard of featured articles. TheManual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, aninfobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in anappropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background andtechnical 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 theManual of Style and relatedstyle 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 substantialcleanup. 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 solvecleanup 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 toreliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.	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 astand-alone list orset 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

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

{{Wikiproject Literature| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - adds articles toCategory:Top-importance Literature articles
• High - adds articles toCategory:High-importance Literature articles
• Mid - adds articles toCategory:Mid-importance Literature articles
• Low - adds articles toCategory:Low-importance Literature articles
• Unknown - Any article not rated for importance is automatically added to theCategory:Unknown-importance Literature articles.

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 worksOttava 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 MonogatariDoneKtlynch (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 ratingAdamCaputo (talk) 11:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC) Has been rated/assessed.INeverCry19:05, 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).Greengreengreenred03:49, 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.INeverCry17:34, 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...)--TyrS16:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject assessments
• WikiProject Literature
• Literature articles by quality