Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity
WikiProject Christianity

Articles Categories Deletion Guide Newsletter Portal Projects

Golden Christian Cross.svg WikiProject Christianity
Main project page talk
Members talk
WikiGrail contest talk
Coordinators talk
Reading list talk
Christianity portal talk
Project category talk
edit · recent changes

Welcome to the assessment department of the Christianity WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Christianity 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 {{ChristianityWikiProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Christianity articles by quality and Category:Christianity articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questionsEdit

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 Christianity 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.

StaffEdit

These editors work to assess and categorize articles within the scope of the Christianity project. If you'd like to help, sign your name below.

InstructionsEdit

StatisticsEdit

Index · Statistics · Log

Christianity articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
  FA 10 8 37 122 177
  FL 3 12 17 32
  FM 165 165
  A 1 1
  GA 23 14 197 348 1 583
B 154 221 728 1,532 36 19 2,690
C 340 623 2,092 4,610 1,387 78 9,130
Start 148 178 1,218 13,798 4 8,616 2,775 26,737
Stub 22 305 12,701 3 7,987 1,732 22,750
List 11 36 704 990 4 6 1,751
Book 14 4 12 11 41
Category 16,377 292 16,669
Disambig 262 1 263
File 797 10 807
Portal 126 1 127
Project 182 1 183
Redirect 1 1,204 15 2 1,222
Template 1 1 3 5 1,908 30 1,948
NA 7 7
Other 1 22 23
Assessed 702 1,110 5,309 34,135 21,050 18,388 4,612 85,306
Unassessed 4 364 25 393
Total 702 1,110 5,309 34,139 21,050 18,752 4,637 85,699
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 316,082 Ω = 5.09


Popular pagesEdit

Quality assessmentsEdit

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{ChristianityWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:

{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=???}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter to describe the quality of the article (see Wikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA (for featured articles only; adds articles to Category:FA-Class Christianity articles)   FA 
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Christianity articles)   A 
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Christianity articles)   GA 
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Christianity articles)   B 
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Christianity articles)   C 
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Christianity articles)   Start 
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Christianity articles)   Stub 
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Christianity articles)   FL 
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Christianity articles)   List 

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Book (for Wikipedia books; adds pages to Category:Book-Class Christianity articles)   Book 
Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Christianity articles)   Category 
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Christianity articles)   Disambig 
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Christianity articles)   Draft 
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class Christianity articles)   FM 
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Christianity articles)   File 
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Christianity articles)   Portal 
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Christianity articles)   Project 
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Christianity articles)   Redirect 
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Christianity articles)   Template 
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Christianity articles)   NA 
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Christianity articles)   ??? 

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

Quality scaleEdit

WikiProject article 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; and
    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.
  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 (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1</ref>)—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.
 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. Mortara case
(as of March 2016)
  FL  The article has attained featured list status.
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. Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography
(as of August 2016)
  FM  Featured pages in the file namespace fall under this class. The page contains a featured image, sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:Canterbury Cathedral Choir 2, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg
  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. Battle of Nam River
(as of June 2014)
  GA  The article has attained good article status, having been examined by one or more impartial reviewers from WP:Good article nominations.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the good article 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; 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. all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those 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;
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations nor 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 fair 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 (but not equaling) 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. Mary Magdalene
(as of June 2018)
  B  The article is mostly complete and without major problems but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
More detailed criteria
The article meets the six B-Class 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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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. 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. 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. Human
(as of April 2019)
  C  The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains much 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; 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. It is most likely that C-Class articles have a reasonable encyclopedic style.
 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. Liberation theology
(as of June 2019)
  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 usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.
 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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Advocates of Roman congregations
(as of June 2019)
  Stub  A very basic description of the topic. Can be well-written, but may also have significant content issues.
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; however, if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category. Although Stub-class articles are the lowest class of the normal classes, they are adequate enough to be an accepted article, though they do have risks of being dropped from being an article altogether.
 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 Association
(as of June 2019)
  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 Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople
(as of June 2019)
  Book  A collection of Wikipedia articles arranged as a Wikipedia book.
More detailed criteria
Collections typically cover a topic and related subjects. These can be downloaded electronically (in PDF or OpenDocument formats), or ordered in print.
 People who would like to read Wikipedia offline, or in print. It is a good idea to team up with a relevant WikiProject to gather feedback on books. Book:Popes
(as of September 2017)
  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:Christian pacifism
  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. Christ (disambiguation)
(as of June 2019)
  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:Worship of the shepherds by bronzino.jpg
  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:Anglicanism
  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:Naming conventions (clergy)
  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. Christ
(as of April 2019)
  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:Christianity by country
  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.

Importance assessmentEdit

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

{{ChristianityWikiProject| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Importance scaleEdit

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about Christianity. Articles in this area should be limited to those which could, reasonably, be found in any encyclopedia regarding Christianity. A reader who is not involved in the field of Christianity 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. Christianity
High The article covers a topic that contributes a depth of knowledge regarding Christianity.
Mid The article covers a topic that is important to at least one field within the broad field of Christianity, and that contributes relevant details regarding the subject. 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 Christianity. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people whose involvement with Christianity in general has been of such impact that a broad understanding of Christianity is not possible without some knowledge of them will be rated in this level.
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Christianity. Few readers outside the Christianity field 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 Christianity, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of Christianity. Armageddon

Requesting an assessmentEdit

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.

Requested AssessmentsEdit

  • I Loves You, Porgy - I have added in-depth analysis of the lyrics and emphasised the duet's significance. I would be very grateful for a new assessment. --Allenthetalon (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Modernism in the Catholic Church - I think I have rearranged the article quite substantially. I would be grateful for a new assessment.--Sylvain Leblanc (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Biblical criticism - recently assessed GA, I would like to have it assessed for possible FA. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Theology of relational care: This article has some potentially serious issues; it may even be in the wrong broad topic category. At the very least, either the article name is very non-indicative of the article content, or the article content is severely incomplete and overly exlusive. See its Talk page for more details.
  • Paul the Black, Peter III of Callinicum, Athanasius I Gammolo – I've added quite a bit to each of these articles. I would be grateful for a new assessment. Mugsalot (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Carolingian cross - I have essentially written an entire article for this topic, conducted extensive historical research into this cross symbol, linked it up to many other topics that share the same historicity, and have hopefully written an article that objectively discusses the Carolingian cross and its history. I would be very grateful for someone to assess this article as I have put an entire semester of work into it. --Radical Contrarian (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Completed AssesmentsEdit

Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as C High. JohnThorne (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as B Mid.JohnThorne (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as B Low. JohnThorne (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Amoris laetitia - Article substantially revised with detailed chronology of implementation and intra-church dialogue. PluniaZ (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid.JohnThorne (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ziff (Book of Mormon) - Article extended & tidied, it's still tiny but there's not much that can be said about the subject - please reassess stub status. Thanks, Pastychomper (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thomas Brattle - Please reassess this article. Major additions, corrections, and citations have recently been made to the article. Thank you, CedrickM (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • St Padarn's Church, Llanbadarn Fawr. This has been assessed as stub level. Given its length, completeness and extensive referencing, could it please be re-assessed. My reading of the quality scale guidelines suggests that it would be B class.Ncox (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Assessed as B Low.JohnThorne (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Image of God. Significant changes have been made to this article by a work-group of seminary students in seminary. Please update the rating. Pneumatechie (talk) 05:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Congregation of St. Basil - Would appreciate all help in updating this page. As a new user, all assistance in this area would be so helpful. How do we move our page up within the 'to do list' of the wikiproject?
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Magdalene asylum - New section added which suggests that it presents the entire Roman Catholic perspective regarding the Magdalene Laundries run in Ireland. References and neutrality need another set of eyes to look at this section. Taram (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as GA Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • St James the Great, St Kilda East - have added extensive references and detail of early days, and the controversy surrounding the Epiphany Window and the execution of Ronald Ryan. I understand that the page remains a work in progress, but would value rating and assessment. Adamm 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Vox in Rama. This was my first article on Wikipedia years ago. Most of the sources I used then were online and have vanished. Have had a major review of the article and sourced information from books rather than Internet sources. Would appreciate a reassess. Thanks. --Alex (a.k.a. October1625) (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • In nomine Domini. Would really appreciate a reassessment of this article. Ii have fleshed it out to double its previous size and included a lot of good references. Maybe it could be moved up in the quality scale? Thanks. --Alex (a.k.a. October1625) (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Assessed as B Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Lucifer. Please reassess this article. Major layout and content changes were made in the past month or so. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 16:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Assessed as C High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Thomas the Apostle. I would like to propose this for a re-assessment as it does not appear to be B-class. There are almost a dozen "citation needed" tags (placed by someone other than me) and at least one of the numbered refs doesn't appear to correspond (i.e., a cite to "AFM" shows as "3", "5", and "15", where 3 & 5 correctly link to something else entirely. Finally, there is a detectable POV seemingly promoting the Syrian Christian Church.Mannanan51 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51
Assessed as B High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as B High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Biblical canon I have been working tirelessly over a month, reworking this article with limited resources, and using when possible what was already mostly available within the article itself and related articles. I think this is important, as related articles sometimes contradict one another. Especially of note are how thorough the tables are now. I am also proud of the re-worked section on the Mormon canon. Clearly, there is still work to be done, especially with the citations.... just looking for feedback, and a possibly higher rating.
Assessed as B Top. JohnThorne (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as B High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • The Beast (Revelation) listed as start-class it has been significantly edited and referenced giving a good representation of the variety of interpretations Dadaw (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting. This article is a complete posting by the webmaster of Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting after coordination with the Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting staff to replace the stub article. Please Evaluate. (Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting) 21 December 2011 UTC
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Tucker v. Texas I have significantly revised the article and structure. One of the Jehovah's Witnesses cases. Please reassess. GregJackP Boomer! 18:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Assessed as C High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessment: Talk:Ancient Church Orders: C Mid. Talk: Apostolic Tradition C Mid. Talk:Verona Palimpsest C Low; Talk:Alexandrine Sinodos C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Francis Collins. This aticle is related to a core subject of Christianity: Creation, and to a universal subject: evolution, so I think it qualifies at least for high importance rating.--Auró (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Wesleyan Church -- Still working on it, but I'd appreciate feedback on the work so far Dawynn (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Christ myth theory -- After finally outlasting the resolve of vandals and mythers, this page has made serious progress in the last two weeks in terms of sourcing and content. I've submitted it for GA review and I'd love to see it go from a B to an A in its qualty ranking. Either of these attainments will help forestall future attempts to hijack the article for promotional purposes. Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Assessment logEdit

The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

January 15, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

RemovedEdit

January 14, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

RemovedEdit

January 13, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

AssessedEdit

RemovedEdit

January 12, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

  • Raising of Lazarus (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Mid-Class to Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Émilie de Rodat (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)

AssessedEdit

January 11, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

RemovedEdit

January 10, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

AssessedEdit

RemovedEdit

January 9, 2021Edit

RenamedEdit

ReassessedEdit

AssessedEdit

RemovedEdit

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Assessment&oldid=993491399"