Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church/Assessment
This page discusses the assessment of Seventh-day Adventist articles in terms of editorial quality and also the importance of the content. It is currently a work in progress!
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment, the assessment page for the parent WikiProject, and Category:Seventh-day Adventist Church articles with comments.
Quality scale
[edit]This section discusses the assessment of article quality for Seventh-day Adventist articles.
Not satisfied with the recent bout of gradings of Seventh-day Adventist articles, largely due to the lack of any clear criteria for both importance and quality. I have included the WP1 grading scheme below as a starting point for quality. It needs to be re-written to reflect specifically Adventist articles. Discussion needs to occur regarding importance. -Fermion 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The following table is transcluded from here:
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.
|
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:
|
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:
|
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
|
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:
|
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 |
There is also "List" class. I just added "Image" as well, and "Category". I suggest that templates be given "NA" class for now, as there is only a few of them. Other types could also be implemented – see Category:Articles by quality.
Importance scale
[edit]This section discusses the assessment of article importance for Seventh-day Adventist articles.
Administration
[edit]What about articles about the Divisions of the General Conference? A simple solution would be Division = high importance, Union = mid, Local conference = low; but this may be too simplistic. GC itself would also be high (I don't think top is right). Colin MacLaurin 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Organizations
[edit]Universities and tertiary colleges
[edit]I have assigned Andrews University and Loma Linda University "high" importance, as I understand them to be the top two most notable tertiary institutions. Colin MacLaurin 06:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Primary and high schools
[edit]I think most or all of these will be "low" importance – what do you think? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Not quite all, some of them have long histories that make them significant to a larger study of the church. Others, are "just another school" these aren't really significant. Unsigned comment added by User:WikiManOne
- They would need to be well argued. I just reverted a rating which put a local school as "high" importance! We need to watch for these false ratings. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I would argue that some, such as those that have graduated large numbers of pupils and have already had their centennial should be given at least "mid" importance. Say if they've graduated over 5000 students and they've been around for 100 years they are given "mid" importance. Some may even be able to claim "high" importance, for example, Mount Vernon Academy, the article currently sucks but they are the oldest Adventist Academy in North America, I think if that article gets improved, it deserves high importance. WikiManOne (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Most articles about even Adventist universities have not been rated as "high" importance. Rating must be consistent. Few articles should be denoted "high" or "top", simply by definition. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- I would argue that some, such as those that have graduated large numbers of pupils and have already had their centennial should be given at least "mid" importance. Say if they've graduated over 5000 students and they've been around for 100 years they are given "mid" importance. Some may even be able to claim "high" importance, for example, Mount Vernon Academy, the article currently sucks but they are the oldest Adventist Academy in North America, I think if that article gets improved, it deserves high importance. WikiManOne (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- They would need to be well argued. I just reverted a rating which put a local school as "high" importance! We need to watch for these false ratings. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
People
[edit]Assistant professor Julius Nam recently listed 19 individuals he sees as the most influential Adventists in America. Note that this list is not his (POV) favourite Adventists, but (NPOV) those he sees as most influential. This input may help article gradings, although it is North America specific. It may also be time related – less accurate in the future. Colin MacLaurin 13:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Theology
[edit]Theology is very important to the Adventist church. Many articles about certain doctrines have been given "high" importance, whereas I have observed many other churches give the same ones "mid" importance typically. I think that "high" importance is justified for major theological topics like Sabbath, conditional immortality and inspiration of Ellen White, given the church's emphasis on theology. I suggest lesser theological topics be given "mid" importance, like the stub (currently) Spirit of Prophecy (Adventist). Colin MacLaurin 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Non-articles
[edit]I have given non-encyclopedic or self-referential articles and categories "NA" class. Normal categories get "cat" class.