Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Saints articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 4 6 12 11 33
FL 1 1
FM 20 20
GA 7 6 17 41 1 72
B 45 68 116 219 63 511
C 51 77 187 901 148 1,364
Start 22 46 328 2,513 121 3,030
Stub 2 24 1,029 69 1,124
List 6 8 387 56 19 24 500
Category 530 530
Disambig 51 51
File 28 28
Portal 86 86
Project 10 10
Redirect 1 3 15 108 236 363
Template 29 29
NA 2 2
Other 9 9
Assessed 136 216 1,086 4,879 1,020 426 7,763
Total 136 216 1,086 4,879 1,020 426 7,763
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 29,032 Ω = 4.73
  • 7.5% List-Class
  • 16.9% Stub-Class
  • 45.7% Start-Class
  • 20.6% C-Class
  • 7.7% B-Class
  • 1.1% GA-Class
  • 0.5% FA-Class

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Saints! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Saints 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 {{WikiProject Saints}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Saints articles by quality, Category:Saints articles by importance, Category:Saints articles needing attention, Category:Saints past collaborations, and Category:Saints portal selected articles. The quality and importance ratings serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. There is also Category:NA-Class Saints articles) for things like redirect pages, templates, categories, images, etc.

Frequently asked questions

[edit]
Saints
WikiProject
Information
Project page talk
Christianity project page talk
Members talk
Style Guidelines talk
Work in progress
Current "To Do" list talk
Articles needed talk
Infobox needed talk
Need Attention ASAP talk
Top Importance Articles talk
Article Stubs talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Peer review talk
Tools
Main Infobox talk
Talk Page Template talk
Userbox Template talk
Other Templates talk
Saints Portal
edit · changes
How can I get my article rated?
As a member of the WikiProject Saints, you can do it yourself. If you're unsure, list it in the requesting an assessment section below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of WikiProject Saints is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article?
Contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.
What if I don't agree with a rating?
Relist it as a request or contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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, or to contact the Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints directly.

Instructions

[edit]

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Saints}} project banner on its talk page. You can learn the syntax by looking at the talk pages in edit mode and by reading the info below.

This is the rating syntax (ratings and dates are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):

{{WikiProject Saints}}
  • displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.
{{WikiProject Saints|class=FA|importance=Top}}
  • all assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in. Leaving the other parameters off does not hurt anything.
{{WikiProject Saints|class=Start|importance=Mid|attention=yes}}
  • if an article needs immediate attention, add the attention tag and please leave talk notes as to why. "yes" is the only valid parameter here. If it doesn't need attention, leave the parameter off.
{{WikiProject Saints|class=B|importance=High|attention=yes|past-selected=[[July]] [[2006]]|past-collaboration=[[April]] [[2006]]}}
  • if an article has been the SATM or COTM, these tags get added in this format. This is the actual project tag of Philmont Scout Ranch.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class and/or importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed saints articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

[edit]

Note: A B-class article should have at least one reference.

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. Cleopatra
(as of June 2018)
 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. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 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 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; 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. Discovery of the neutron
(as of April 2019)
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. Psychology
(as of January 2024)
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. Wing
(as of June 2018)
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. Also improve the grammar, spelling, writing style and improve the jargon use. Ball
(as of September 2014)
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. Lineage (anthropology)
(as of December 2014)
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 literary movements

Importance scale

[edit]

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of hagiography. Importance does not equate to quality; a featured article could rate 'mid' on importance.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated. Rate international region/country-specific articles from the prespective of someone from that region.

Article importance grading scheme
Label Criteria Examples
Top Subject is a "core" or "key" topic for the study of Saints, or is particularly notable for their contributions in this area to people other than students of Saints. They define and determine the subject of the Saints WikiProject. Saint Peter, Thomas Becket
High Subject is notable in a significant and important way within the field of Saints, but not necessarily outside it. Saint Patrick, Francis of Assisi
Mid Subject contributes to the total subject of the Saints WikiProject. Subject may not necessarily be famous. Ignatius of Loyola, Clare of Assisi
Low Subject is not particularly notable or significant even within the field of Saints, and may have been included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic. Winefride, Saint Nicholas Owen

Requesting an assessment or re-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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM

  • Like this - (and put "(re-)assessment request" in your edit summary of this assessment page); leave reasons if a reassessment.
  • Stefan Nemanja. Not rated on the importance scale. Considering that he contributed to the Christian Church world-wide and is a founding father of a nation (and religion to an extent). I can't decide between "High" and "Top". I'd advice "High", better. When talking about Serbs, he's nowhere near Saint Abbas. --PaxEquilibrium 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Importance is based upon one thing and one thing only:the subject's importance to this project in particular. His position as founder of a nation is really irrelevant to this particular project, and the claim for being founder of a church on that basis is at best tenuous. I'd say "Mid" importance, which would put him on a par with the other figures of significant importance to the smaller churches but of limited importance to Christianity, and thus this project, overall. Top and High importance are basically reserved for those who have a direct impact on all of Christianity, and his influence/impact in that field is rather limited. John Carter 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Top may be pushing it. I recommend High at most. The reason is that he is obviously an extremely important figure in Serbia but his importance in most of the rest of the world is, let's say, not as significant. He's just not in the same class as, say, Saint Peter or Saint Paul of Tarsus. Majoreditor 21:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Majoreditor. Importance is based on global importance to the project overall. His position as first patriarch of the Serbian church upon its separation doesn't really make him the founder of a new church, but more like the first archbishop of a new archdiocese. "High" at most. John Carter 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. I took the liberty of cleaning up a bit. Can I get you to use the "Show preview" button before you save? --Bwpach (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to do more. thanks Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
B-class but could use additional citations. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Saints/Assessment&oldid=1047134550"