Religion
articles | Importance | | Top | High | Mid | Low | None | Total | | Quality |  FA | 1 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 14 | 30 |  A | | | | | 1 | 1 |  GA | 1 | 3 | 8 | 14 | 9 | 35 | | B | 11 | 39 | 91 | 109 | 161 | 411 | | C | 5 | 13 | 68 | 115 | 61 | 262 | | Start | 1 | 34 | 238 | 624 | 502 | 1399 | | Stub | 1 | 3 | 60 | 344 | 270 | 678 | | List | | 3 | 7 | 3 | 36 | 49 | | Assessed | 20 | 98 | 476 | 1217 | 1054 | 2865 | | Unassessed | | 1 | 8 | 4 | 1805 | 1818 | | Total | 20 | 99 | 484 | 1221 | 2859 | 4683 | Welcome to the assessment department of the Religion WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Religion related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work. The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WPReligion}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Religion articles by quality and Category:Religion articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. | Contents - 1 Frequently asked questions
- 2 Instructions
- 3 Assessment log
- 3.1 December 30, 2009
- 3.2 December 22, 2009
- 3.3 December 17, 2009
- 3.4 December 10, 2009
- 3.5 December 6, 2009
- 3.6 November 30, 2009
- 3.7 November 25, 2009
- 3.8 November 21, 2009
- 3.9 November 16, 2009
- 3.10 November 11, 2009
- 3.11 November 7, 2009
- 3.12 November 3, 2009
- 3.13 October 26, 2009
- 3.14 October 21, 2009
- 3.15 October 16, 2009
- 3.16 October 12, 2009
- 3.17 October 3, 2009
- 3.18 September 27, 2009
- 3.19 September 23, 2009
- 3.20 September 20, 2009
- 3.21 September 16, 2009
- 3.22 September 12, 2009
- 3.23 September 8, 2009
- 3.24 September 4, 2009
- 3.25 August 28, 2009
| [edit] Frequently asked questions - How can I get my article rated?
- Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
- Who can assess articles?
- Any member of the Religion WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article.
- 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 the section 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.
- Aren't the ratings subjective?
- Yes, they are, but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department. [edit] Instructions [edit] Quality assessments An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Religion}} project banner on its talk page: - {{WikiProject Religion|class=???}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article: For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter: The class parameter should be assigned according to the quality scale below. After assessing an article's quality, comments on the assessment can be added either to the article's talk page or to the /Comments subpage which will appear as a link next to the assessment. Adding comments will add the article to Category:Religion articles with comments. Comments that are added to the /Comments subpages will be transcluded onto the automatically generated work list pages in the Comments column. [edit] Quality scale WikiProject article quality grading scheme | Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example | | FA | The article has attained featured article status. | More detailed criteria | | The article meets the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. - It is—
- (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;
- (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
- (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;
- (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and
- (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.
- It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
- (a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
- (b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
- (c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended.
- Images. It has images that follow the image use policy and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, brief and useful alt text when feasible, and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
- Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
| | 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. | L'incoronazione di Poppea
(as of December 2009) | | A | The article is well-organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject, like military history, or elsewhere. Good article status is not a requirement for A-Class. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the A-Class criteria:
Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. 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 a featured article candidate. See the A-Class assessment departments of some of the larger WikiProjects (e.g. WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Films). | | Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. | Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer review may help. | Cologne War
(as of October 2009) | | GA | The article has attained good article status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the good article criteria: - Well-written:
- (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
- (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Factually accurate and verifiable:
- (a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout;
- (b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and
- (c) it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage:
- (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
- (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images:
- (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
- (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
| | Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia. | Some editing by subject and style experts is helpful; comparison with an existing featured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Typhoon Elsie (1989)
(as of November 2009) |  B | The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach good article standards. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the six B-Class criteria: - The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged.
- The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-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 a lead 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 it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
- The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
- The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. | KV55
(as of November 2009) |  C | The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. | More detailed criteria | | The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective. | | 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 address cleanup issues. | Architecture of Denmark
(as of November 2009) |  Start | An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. | More detailed criteria | | The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted. | | Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more. | Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation. | Real analysis
(as of November 2006) |  Stub | A very basic description of the topic. | More detailed criteria | | 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. | | Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. | Geodia gibberosa
(as of July 2009) | | FL | The article has attained featured list status. | More detailed criteria | The article meets the featured list criteria: - Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
- Lead. It has an engaging lead 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) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article.
- Structure. It is easy to navigate through and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
- Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
- Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit 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. | Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3)
(as of February 2009) |  List | Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list, 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 aikidoka
(as of June 2007) | [edit] Importance assessment An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Religion}} project banner on its talk page: - {{WikiProject Religion| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for importance assessments: [edit] Importance scale | Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example | | Top | The article is one of the core topics about religion. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are listed on {{Religion topics}} | A reader who is not involved in the field of religion will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. | Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. | Religion | | High | The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding religion. | | Mid | The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of religion. | Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. | Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand religion, such as specific aspects of more-widely known faiths. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in specific religions will be rated in this level. | Southern Pacific 4449 | | Low | The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of religion. | Few readers outside the religion field or that are not adherents to the specific faith may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. | Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of religion, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of religions. | Jordanhill railway station | Given the number and variety of articles with which this project shall be dealing, I believe that we should devote a good deal of attention in the short run to determining which of the articles we consider to be of greatest importance to the project. We now have a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Assessment/Top-importance articles where we can discuss which articles should receive top-importance ranking. Any and all input is more than welcome. [edit] Requesting an assessment If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below. - Taoic religion - Recently passed GA review. Started with this, expanded it to this, which includes editor notes for expansion, earning the GA pass. Looking for outside input to see if others think this would appropriately be rated A-Class and what project participants think needs to be done to pass a WP:FAC review.Vassyana 10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fellowship of Friends - Can you tell me how to rate this article? Thanks. Mario Fantoni 06:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Fellowship of Friends - this article is probably a B class, low importance religion.--Moon Rising 17:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ismailism - I recently rewrote most of the article and have tried to make it as high quality as I could. --Enzuru 21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sant Nirankari Mission - I have added new content and done as much referencing as I could. I would need some sort of rating and comments to make it even better. Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks!
- Aura-Soma - have been working on this one, and will be trying to get it to GA class once I can get hold of the books referenced to add citations. Think it might be B class now, a second would be very welcome, as would thoughts on anything the article needs to reach GA. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ayyavazhi - An extremely well-referenced and lengthy article which is written in Summary style with main article for each sections. It seems right to fit as a Good article. Any one pls tale a look into it.
- Sai Baba of Shirdi - it's just received GA status and I think it could be brought to A class. Kkrystian 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
- Tamara Siuda -- Significant changes have been made in the past month or so, including layout, content, and the addition of a variety of references. Was not rated under the Religion project before, I believe now to be "GA". IanCheesman (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Kemetic Orthodoxy -- Complete re-write took place over the past few months, including layout, content, and references. Article is now more than four times the original size, and layout is largely based on that of other religion pages. Was not rated under the Religion project before, I believe now to be "GA". IanCheesman (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Share International -- New information added about essential philosophy, incorrect information deleted, new pictures added Camillaworld 15:22,8 August 2008 (UTC)
- Lynn de Silva -- New biography article. It has been refined and reviewed quite a bit over the past few months, so I would appreciate your rating and feedback. Thanks! Ldesilva (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
- History of religions -- I would think this to be a high importance article, but its currently lacking in many ways. Reading through the talk page, it seems like it has been fomred by a bad merge of two other articles. KalevTait (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Religions of Kerala -- I think this is a very intersting article considering unique mixture of people of different faiths in this Indian state. This article still requires some images and has still incomplete sections. Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Dawoodi Bohra -- Please rate as I made some changes to the article. It was not rated before Sherenk (talk) 08:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Mithraic Mysteries -- I have made a lot of changes to this controversial and previously rather dodgy article. A new rating would probably be appropriate. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
- Sol Invictus -- Most parts of this article have been completely rewritten.
[edit] Assessment log - The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
 | This is a log of operations by a bot. The contents of this page are unlikely to need human editing. In particular, links should not be disambiguated as this is a historical record. | [edit] December 30, 2009 [edit] December 22, 2009 [edit] December 17, 2009 [edit] December 10, 2009 [edit] December 6, 2009 [edit] November 30, 2009 [edit] November 25, 2009 [edit] November 21, 2009 [edit] November 16, 2009 [edit] November 11, 2009 [edit] November 7, 2009 [edit] November 3, 2009 [edit] October 26, 2009 [edit] October 21, 2009 [edit] October 16, 2009 [edit] October 12, 2009 [edit] October 3, 2009 [edit] September 27, 2009 [edit] September 23, 2009 [edit] September 20, 2009 [edit] September 16, 2009 [edit] September 12, 2009 [edit] September 8, 2009 [edit] September 4, 2009 [edit] August 28, 2009 Log truncated as it is too huge! |
