Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romance/Assessment

Examples
We need to hammer out good examples of Top, High, Mid and Low, with both an example from an author and a book.plange (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, I'm wondering if RITA award winners would be Mid, unless they're multiple? Otherwise, we have Laura Drake and Carolyn Crane on the same level as say Tessa Dare. What do you think? plange (talk) 02:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And I just realized that my statement I put in there for Top could've been construed as aimed at the two new members. Ack! It was actually for the future, once we have everything set. I pulled the language from another group thinking that could be useful so a new person doesn't come along and willy-nilly make their fave authors Top. I think between the three of us we know which is Top and can self-assess. I've been leaving some blank as I haven't been sure and will wait until we can hash out some examples...

To get the ball rolling, how about these examples? I'd like to get at least one publisher, one author, one topic, and one book for each:

Top Subject is a "core" topic for romance as a field. Should be articles necessary to understanding the genre (and its evolution) as a whole. No member should give this rating to any romance article without first getting Project approval from the other members.
 * Nora Roberts
 * Romance novel
 * Kathleen Woodiwiss - thought it'd be good to have a modern and historical (romance industry-wise, not genre-wise) author to help show what this level exemplifies?
 * The Flame and the Flower
 * Harlequin

High Subject is very notable or significant within the field of romance and is of interest to those outside of the field. Members of RWA Hall of Fame would fall into this category. NEED A GOOD QUALIFIER FOR A BOOK
 * Bet Me
 * Mills & Boon or should that be Top?
 * Diana Gabaldon or should she be Top?
 * Jessica Bird I have to keep reminding myself this is J.R. Ward. Is she more known under that name?
 * Paranormal romance

Mid Subject is notable or significant within the field of romance, but not necessarily outside of the field. Bestsellers (or their authors) and Winners of RITA Awards (novels and authors) and other awards (RoNA) would fall into this category.
 * The Secrets of Sir Richard Kenworthy
 * Carolyn Crane
 * Ellora's Cave

Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of romance, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage in relation to some other notable article.
 * Sharp Edges
 * Pamela Aidan
 * Entangled Publishing

I'm not as up on notability, so I'm thinking whatever would just allow someone/something to be notable enough for an article would be assessed as Low? I really don't think what I have is set in stone, I'm only posting it up as a scratchboard to help facilitate hashing it out. I'm also wondering if it's too American-centric? All help and suggestions appreciated! plange (talk) 13:44, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Top - I think this should include all the subgenre articles (paranormal romance, historical romance, Regency romance, etc). These are the definitions of the genre.  This should include pioneering authors (Georgette Heyer, Nora Roberts - first American to write for Harlequin/sells more books than just about anyone; Kathleen Woodiwiss; I'd also include Jayne Ann Krentz here, for Sweet Starfire.)  Probably include RITA Award and Romance Writers of America.  If we include Harlequin, we should also include Mills & Boon.
 * High -> I think RITA award-winning novels should be high priority. I would also put any novel that was in the top 5 (or 3) on the NYT bestseller list as a High.  Authors who have won multiple awards or who have had multiple bestsellers.  This would likely also include the next tier of major publishers - Avon, for example.
 * Mid - novels that won other awards (besides the RITA); novels that were between 6-20 on the NYT Bestseller List or in the top 20 of the USA Today bestseller list.  Authors who have won one RITA or had one bestseller.
 * We need to think about how to handle the literary criticism also (although first, we have to create the articles). For example, Pamela Regis, Krentz's Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women: Romance Writers on the Appeal of the Romance, Journal of Popular Romance Studies. Karanacs (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you--I waited for a bit before incorporating to give our other member a chance to chime in, but in the absence of any more feedback, I've gone ahead and incorporated this into the Importance table. Maybe we can start a discussion on the Notice Board about the literary criticism? plange (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for not weighing in sooner -- my Internet access has been limited as I was moving. I agree with both of your assessment suggestions. Concerning plange's question about which novels to include in the "High" category, how about Emma (not Austen's most famous but still important), or Outlander (popular book in and outside romance field, but perhaps not enough for "Top" category)?  Ruby  2010/  2013  18:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we possibly use whether the book has been turned into a movie as one of the criteria for assessment? Outlander and Emma both have movies.  Karanacs (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, life happens! They're still changeable, but I just wanted to get something up :) plange (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe with the caveat of it being from a major Hollywood studio or a major cable network series? Otherwise we might get ones that were made into Hallmark/Lifetime movies in High, which might be another bit of wording we can use for a book in Low or Mid? For instance, compare those books with the one in this article I made recently that was made into a Lifetime movie (mentioned in the Lead)--this might mean Porter's book gets an article, but need to articulate where it would fall in importance in relation to books like Emma and Outlander. This tangentially brings up scope too. When I set up the initial Project I just put up what I was thinking at the time, and assumed things could morph and change once the project gained members. So I didn't include romance movies in the scope, as my gut reaction was that that widened our scope too much, as we still have so much to do that's already within scope. But that's just my gut. What do you all think? In other words, I just pictured the project as a subset of Literature, but including biographies. Back to High vs. Top and other rungs with novels-- what about some kind of wording about cultural impact? For instance, Outlander and Emma have both had a wider cultural impact than say your average RITA winner (which is High). I could almost see Outlander making a good argument for High, since, while it didn't start the TTRom, it certainly made Scottish TTRom into its own subgenre, was the gateway novel many mention for getting into romance, made into this series, which has made wider ripples (Tumblr and other blogs devoted specifically to it, etc), critical discussion about sex and the female gaze on TV (except, actually that's about the Starz iteration, nevermind). Hmmm, just thought about a criteria we could use for Top--any author or book that is discussed in an essay on the history of the genre in a WP:RS. For High, it could be one that gets mentioned in a book on the history of the genre (like Regis). I need to get Regis' book.... What do you guys think? plange (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think this should be more a subset of literature. If we start including romantic movies, the scope balloons out of control.  Perhaps "made into a direct-to-tv/cable movie" earns a "Mid" ranking, and released in theaters earns a High. While we flesh out what makes a book Top, perhaps we should start a list of potential inclusions? Karanacs (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, lots to reply to here! :) Having written many film adaptation articles (like this), I was wondering about scope myself. But I agree the project's scope would expand dramatically if we did this, so maybe consider it for the future but not now? (So we can focus on one thing at a time)? I like the idea of rating a novel as "High" if it has been adapted by a major studio or television network (as its cultural impact will consequently be higher than most romance novels). I've read a bit of Regis' history but also do not own it, but from what I saw, I also think she would be a good judge of measuring a novel's cultural impact for our scale. Classifying a novel as "Mid" if it became a "made into a direct-to-tv/cable movie" works for me.  Ruby  2010/  2013  14:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in response! Had to turn my book into my editor on Tuesday, so it was crunch time... For scope--I think revisiting later is a great idea. Feel free to make changes below. Mine are in red:

And these are what we have as High. Feel free to cross out and/or add until we get this worked out:


 * Jane Austen
 * Harlequin Enterprises
 * Georgette Heyer
 * Historical romance
 * Pamela; or, Virtue Rewarded
 * Pride and Prejudice
 * RITA Award
 * Nora Roberts
 * Romance novel
 * Romance Writers of America
 * The Flame and the Flower
 * Kathleen E. Woodiwiss

Excited about what we're achieving! plange (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's coming together nicely. I would put all of the subgenres in the Top category.  Should we also add the following?
 * Mills and Boon
 * Rosemary Rogers
 * Sweet Savage Love (ETA: seriously??  We don't have an article for this? Karanacs (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC) )
 * Janet Dailey (first American writer for a category line)
 * Sweet Starfire (first scifi romance)
 * Jayne Ann Krentz
 * We're very North American-centric. Karanacs (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * oops forgot the subgenres, yes! And I agree with the others. Maybe SSL can be our first collaboration? plange (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea for a collaboration. I'm trying to remember, but I don't think I ever read that book in particular (I read 2 or 3 of Rogers' books and decided I didn't like her style at all). Karanacs (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't read it either. I think the only old skool romance I ever read was one of Woodiwiss's. Started a sandbox for collaborating plange (talk) 17:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, got new language in. What about other awards for authors besides the RITA in Mid? There's the RoNA, and then some of the Romantic Times book awards and their Career Achievement Award. I notice we have in High "have won multiple notable awards" Should we spell these awards out? And should those that earned the Nora Roberts Lifetime Achievement Award automatically be in High? Am coming across bios where I'm not sure whether to place them in Low or Mid plange (talk) 00:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)