Talk:Max Havelaar

Ratings
Okay, so I don't claim to be up on all the details of this assessment system, but calling this article a "stub" just doesn't make any sense; the article isn't beautiful, and it doesn't have a million subheadings, but it has a brief discussion of the plot, a good discussion of its historical context and importance, and a few citations. So I'm going to bump it up a notch... CDC (talk) 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In the quality scale, an article needs to have at least one of the following to be called Start-class:

In my opinion, the article didn't have any of these, therefore it was qualified as stub. I can live with start as per your reasons, but I still think that formally it should be a stub. Errabee 09:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * a particularly 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
 * Maybe in 2006. Not now. I've classified 'B' all projects. FightingMac (talk) 22:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This article shows all the flair of a high school term paper composed by a C student. Wikipedia promotes the more banal side of mediocrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.254.69.180 (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)