Talk:Last Seen Wearing ... (Hillary Waugh novel)

=Discussion=

Grading issues and debate
While rereading the article on Hillary Waugh's Last Seen Wearing ... I came across the new rating system and think it is a preposterous idea.

It favours old, traditional, mainstream literature, implicitly advocates and perpetuates the notion that there is a literary canon and counteracts Wikipedia's own NPOV policy. It is also highly undemocratic both in the way it was introduced (where was this rating system discussed?) and in the way it is being executed (according to the guideline, a single member of the novels project can decide on the quality, i.e. importance, of a work of literature and on the quality of the corresponding article).

But above all this new system is not necessary to achieve good results in Wikipedia's literary department &mdash; quite the opposite.

Last Seen Wearing ... seems to be a case in point. Carelessly labelled "Start-Class" and "Low-importance", the only good thing about its rating is that it does not appear on the article page itself. The article states explicitly that among the experts this novel is regarded as the police procedural par excellence; on the other hand, nowhere on the web or in books on crime fiction will you find a thorough discussion of its content. "Original research" is not allowed here at Wikipedia, so what on earth would have to be added to this article so that it could achieve a better status?

&lt;KF&gt; 23:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

From a discussion with Kevinalewis:

As far as the quality rating is concerned &mdash; this is the official description of "Start-class", according to WikiProject Novels/Assessment:


 * Not useless. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere.


 * Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built.

In the light of Last Seen Wearing ..., I simply do not understand


 * Ok, on that basis - neither do I -
 * First thing is that this is not specifically a "Novels" criteria as you might see it is a WP:1.0 grading schema inclusion.
 * Second I have been working almost exclusively off the "criteria" column which I think is far more rational anyway.
 * Thirdly, I think I must challenge (i.e. with the WP:1.0 people) at least some of that language of those other columns, far too combative in my view. It obviously got to you, and also when I think about it to me as well. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  12:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have started the process of questioning some of the text that you quote here. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  15:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) what most readers will be looking for ("Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not");
 * 2) what exactly makes the article appear to be "under construction";
 * 3) why "a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere" (where, for Christ's sake?);
 * 4) where, if "most material for a complete article needs to be added", all that material is supposed to come from; and, finally,
 * 5) why "this article [...] isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag".

I'm neither trying to defend a crime novel few people outside a circle of aficionados admittedly know exists at all, nor my own work. I'd be happy if some wonderkid rewrote the text so that it could pass as "GA" or (why not?) "FA". But again: What exactly would they have to do?

&lt;KF&gt; 11:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Next thing to say is don't confuse issues of article quality - with subject significance. I terms of what to do to improve the article I did throw up and idea or two last post. At least for the moment and based on your observations I think a B quality grading must be the thing. :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  12:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Moved from grading comments (not easily available for general debate and size of debate and issue there) :: Kevinalewis  :  (Talk Page) / (Desk)  12:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)