Talk:Eight Skilled Gentlemen

This is not stub class, but let's discuss
Anyone want to weigh in and defend the flagging of this as "stub class?" I don't use AWB, but it appears there is some automatic stub classification that some apparently inexperienced editors are using AWB to flag obvious non-stub articles (like this one). Rather than be contentious, please weigh in and either defend the stub classification, or point out that this may be a short article in need of expansion, but definitely not a stub. I'm mystified. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a stub, I quote from WP:WikiProject Novels/Assessment:
 * "The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category."
 * This article is 1) very short, 2) a rough collection that doesn't quite meet start class comprehensiveness. Though Stub does not say this, the project definitions and 1.0 Assessment definitions seem to apply here. Now I may be applying a more critical eye to this then others, but also, Novels articles tend to be pretty long, and in comparison to may that I know to be C-class and higher, this is only a fraction of the length. So if my definition is a little skewed, I apologize Sadads (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that this article has full bibliographic information, a plot summary, and three referenced book reviews which I would not consider a "rough collection?" I'm going to leave the stub flag as it is pretty irrelevant to the entry itself. You might want to read about the Croughton-London rule of stubs to better refine what some might see as a stub. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Reassessed as start class. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)