Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Religion articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 18 6 23 31 78
FL 1 4 5
A 1 1
GA 67 21 55 161 2 306
B 510 226 420 882 263 2,301
C 628 298 722 2,268 498 4,414
Start 456 186 620 3,653 1,106 6,021
Stub 3 5 68 1,662 510 2,248
List 6 21 58 254 103 442
Category 14,045 14,045
Disambig 88 88
File 145 145
Portal 337 337
Project 68 68
Redirect 13 6 36 177 983 1,215
Template 618 618
NA 3 3
Other 1 1 214 216
Assessed 1,703 769 2,003 9,093 16,501 2,482 32,551
Unassessed 3 3
Total 1,703 769 2,003 9,093 16,501 2,485 32,554
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 68,769 Ω = 4.47

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.

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
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.

Instructions

[edit]

Quality assessments

[edit]

An article's quality assessment is recorded using the |class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Religion}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds them to the FA-Class Religion articles category)  FA
FL (for featured lists only; adds them to the FL-Class Religion articles category)  FL
A (for articles that passed a formal peer review only; adds them to the A-Class Religion articles category)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds them to the GA-Class Religion articles category)  GA
B (for articles that satisfy all of the B-Class criteria; adds them to the B-Class Religion articles category) B
C (for substantial articles; adds them to the C-Class Religion articles category) C
Start (for developing articles; adds them to the Start-Class Religion articles category) Start
Stub (for basic articles; adds them to the Stub-Class Religion articles category) Stub
List (for stand-alone lists; adds them to the List-Class Religion articles category) List
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to the NA-Class Religion pages category) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in the Unassessed Religion articles category) ???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

Category (for categories; adds them to the Category-Class Religion pages category) Category
Draft (for drafts; adds them to the Draft-Class Religion pages category) Draft
File (for files and timed text; adds them to the File-Class Religion pages category) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds them to the Portal-Class Religion pages category) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds them to the Project-Class Religion pages category) Project
Template (for templates and modules; adds them to the Template-Class Religion pages category) Template

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds them to the Disambig-Class Religion pages category) Disambig
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds them to the Redirect-Class Religion pages category) Redirect

After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.

Quality scale

[edit]
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
Class Criteria Reader's experience Editing suggestions Example
 FA The article has attained featured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured article candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured article criteria:

A featured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting the policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 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. Baháʼí Faith
 FL The article has attained featured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from WP:Featured list candidates.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the featured list criteria:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. N/A
 A The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been examined by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject 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:Article development. 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).
 Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject would typically find nothing wanting. Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style problems may need solving. WP:Peer review may help. N/A
 GA The article meets all of the good article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
A good article is:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;[1] and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (though not necessarily equalling) the quality of a professional publication. 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. Thelema
B The article meets all of the B-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. 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. Expert knowledge may be needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the Manual of Style and related style guidelines. Christianity
C The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup.
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
 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 solve cleanup problems. Scientology
Start An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources.
More detailed criteria
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas. The article has one or more of the following:
  • A 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
 Provides some meaningful content, but most readers will need more. Providing references to reliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. Another Gospel
Stub A very basic description of the topic. Meets none of the Start-Class criteria. Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition. Readers probably see insufficiently developed features of the topic and may not see how the features of the topic are significant. Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority. The best solution for a Stub-class Article to step up to a Start-class Article is to add in referenced reasons of why the topic is significant. Church of the Truth
List Meets the criteria of a stand-alone list or set index article, 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 new religious movements
Category Any category falls under this class. Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area. Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized. Category:Religion
Disambig Any disambiguation page falls under this class. The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title. Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title. Gods (disambiguation)
File Any page in the file namespace falls under this class. The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:Religious syms.svg
Portal Any page in the portal namespace falls under this class. Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date. Portal:Religion
Project All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion
Redirect Any redirect falls under this class. The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location. Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles. Calvary Chapel Church
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles. Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information. Template:Religion topics
NA Any non-article page that fits no other classification. The page contains no article content. Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified. N/A

Importance assessment

[edit]

An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Religion}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Religion| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Importance scale

[edit]
WikiProject article importance scheme
Importance Criteria 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}}. 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. Religion
Priest
Jesus
Christianity
Islam
Atheism
 High The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding religion. Religion in the United States
Cult
Prophecy
Catholic Church
 Mid The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of religion. 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. Coffin
Baba Rabba
Greek Orthodox Church
Happy Science
 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. 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack
Biblical canon
Harold Bussell
Church of God in Christ

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.

Requesting an assessment

[edit]

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.

  1. Alpha_et_Omega New text with many new refs added and general clean-up, should now be higher than Start Class.
  2. Catholic Church-Requesting review of this article to raise it above C-class status, as editors have made significant improvement.TopazStar (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bhagavad Gita - Requesting review for GA quality class, as I have majorly re-organized and cleaned it up. Adelle Frank (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 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)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. 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!
  7. 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.
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. 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)[reply]
  10. 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)[reply]
  11. Share International -- New information added about essential philosophy, incorrect information deleted, new pictures added Camillaworld 15:22,8 August 2008 (UTC)
  12. 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)[reply]
  13. 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)[reply]
  14. 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)[reply]
  15. 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)[reply]
  16. 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)[reply]
  17. Sol Invictus -- Most parts of this article have been completely rewritten.
  18. Theology -- extensively rewritten, referenced, and cleaned up since last quality assessment (C). --mahigton (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Mormonism and Islam -- Huge rewrite, major additions; this article hasn't yet been rated by this particular project. Would appreciate your opinion on it. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Joseph Campbell -- I haven't been able to find when the last review of the article was; it has been greatly improved over the last year and a half, and would be worth a fresh review. David Kudler (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue -- Please review this new article. Thanks! Ldesilva (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Creativity (religion) -- A review of this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! --SCochran4 (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Mithras -- This article has been completely rewritten since February and the talk page suggests the changes were controversial. Could the article be re-rated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.68.2.181 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I played some part in the changes since February, and agree that a new rating would be helpful. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Please assess Moon-God Allah.Nightryder84 (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Hyper-Calvinism - I'm planning on doing a rewrite, but need to know where the article stands first. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Kami -- Requesting a review for this article as it has been greatly improved in the last month and might be ready for C class. Pearly18 (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Pistis Sophia one of the main sources on gnosticism. Should be of importance for WikiProject religion and needs assessment on quality scale.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jizya- This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale and it's really well written and sourced. Thanks.Truth-seeker2004 (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Soka Gakkai- This article had been improved for the pass few month with many citation put into the article. Requesting a review for this article. Kelvintjy (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Yahweh - This article's focus is fairly debated, it seems biased, and it may not cover everything that it should. I have not contributed to it personally but question whether a B rating on the quality scale is really appropriate. -KaJunl (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Abu Hanifa Mosque - I would appreciate it if this article gets assessed after the amount of hard work that was devoted into it. Hashima20 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Frederick Denison Maurice - Please reassess this article. I have made significant changes. Vejlefjord (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Absolute (philosophy) - Reassessment please. I re-did the article from the bones up. CircularReason (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Superstition - Currently rated as Top, despite not being listed at {{Religion topics}}. From the scale, I'd consider it as High. I rated List of superstitions as Mid, but I'd not be averse to a High rating. Paradoctor (talk) 14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Ioann Bereslavsky - Not rated article --Yolanda95 (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Yolanda95[reply]
  36. Christianization has had a total rewrite, and it is no longer a start class article. It is not of low importance as its content covers one of the most singularly important topics in Christianity, listed on the important topics list in two places (aspects and Religion and society), and it does so for all of Christian history.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Fifth Monarchists; rewrite and update of "C" Class article, either a "B" or possibly a "GA"? Robinvp11 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Sikhism in Italy - I have significantly updated this article. Completely transformed. Please can get a second review now.--Jattlife121 (talk) 14:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment log

[edit]
Religion articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.


May 26, 2025

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]
  1. ^ Prose at the Good Article level is not expected to be at a professional level like it is for Featured Articles. Minor grammatical or style issues that do not impact clarity are not prohibitive of GA status.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/Assessment&oldid=1157876622"