Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment

WikiProject Christianity Articles Categories Deletion Guide Newsletter Portal Projects Main pageShowcaseAssessmentPlanMembersNoticeboard Peer review Requests

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 questions

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of the 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.

Staff

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.

• Afaprof01 21:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Vassyana 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• FitzColinGerald - Anything related to the Last Supper and other prominent Christian rituals intrigues me greatly.
• StudentoftheWord 14:45, 17 October 2007 (MST) - Comment: I am a contributor concerning articles concerning Christian Universalism and it's derivitive catagories.
• John Carter (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
• Tinucherian (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
• Kristamaranatha (talk) 20:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Ltwin (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
• User:Kathanar
• Swampfire (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
• HopeChrist (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
• Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
• Lamorak (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Rak-Tai (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)]]
• Rowlan - Comment: Interested in the evolution of Christian Theology, Practice and Liturgy; also interested in multiple other aspects of the faith.Rowlan (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
• Ian Raphael Lopez  :) (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Comment: I am currently interested in the formation of religion and current Christian practices.
• TheSilverArrow 16:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
• JohnRLambert
• Cognate247 (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• JohnChrysostom (talk) 07:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Adam in MO Talk 15:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
• ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
• Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• Guðsþegn (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Tomh903 (talk) 20:50 15 February 2014 (UTC)
• JohnThorne (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
• Stalin Sunny ^Talk2Me 05:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Adamant1 (talk) 08:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
• Brian (talk) 07:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Instructions

Statistics

Index · Statistics · Log

Christianity articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	Other	???	Total
FA	10	9	37	126		3	1	186
FL		1	14	20				35
FM					209	1		210
A	1			1				2
GA	21	15	192	449		35	3	715
B	224	263	803	2,235		392	233	4,150
C	347	806	2,309	6,769	1	2,491	639	13,362
Start	218	221	1,303	18,684	2	10,455	1,008	31,891
Stub	1	10	257	14,652		8,258	486	23,664
List	13	39	702	1,011	2	79	29	1,875
Category					19,431	1,301		20,732
Disambig					325	18		343
File					683	3		686
Portal					39	1		40
Project					123	7		130
Redirect	6	41	109	665	937	273	2	2,033
Template					1,826	113		1,939
NA				28	10			38
Other					201			201
Assessed	841	1,405	5,726	44,640	23,789	23,430	2,401	102,232
Unassessed			1	4		8	9	22
Total	841	1,405	5,727	44,644	23,789	23,438	2,410	102,254
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 368,855			Ω = 4.99

Popular pages

• WikiProject Christianity popular pages are updated monthly.

Quality assessments

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{ChristianityWikiProject}} project banner on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

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:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Christianity pages)		Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Christianity pages)		Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Christianity pages)		Draft
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class Christianity pages)		FM
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Christianity pages)		File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Christianity pages)		Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Christianity pages)		Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Christianity pages)		Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Christianity pages)		Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Christianity pages)		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 scale

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. It is: well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard; comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; 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; neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; 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 compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and 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. 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. 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.	Mortara case (as of March 2016)
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: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria. Comprehensiveness. (a) It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items. (b) statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a) Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b) Media files. It has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions. Non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly. (c) Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text. 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.	Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography (as of August 2016)
FM	Pictures that have attained featured picture status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. More detailed criteria A featured picture: Is of a high technical standard. It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance. It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here. Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements. Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed. Is of high resolution. It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height (1500×1500px); larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred. Further information on image size can be found here. Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration. Note that vector graphics in SVG format omit any requirement for any pixel count. Animations and video may be somewhat smaller. Is among Wikipedia's best work. It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer. It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative. A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide. commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:File copyright tags. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article. The image is used in one or more articles. It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image. A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English. A complete file description: Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable. Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other medium. Geotagging photographs of identifiable places is encouraged. This entails providing the coordinates of where the camera was when the medium was recorded to an appropriate degree of precision no less than ~10 km² (see Commons:Geocoding, or Template:Coord if the image is hosted on the English Wikipedia). States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc). It is suggested that additional relevant information that becomes known during the course of the nomination be subsequently included in the file description. May include languages other than English but there must be an English version available that meets this criterion. The file name may be in a language other than English. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation. Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive. Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction. More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text. Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable. Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.	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 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: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; 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); it contains no original research; and it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and 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.	Mary Magdalene (as of June 2018)
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 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. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. 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. 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.	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 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.	Advocates of Roman congregations (as of June 2019)
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 Association (as of June 2019)
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 Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople (as of June 2019)
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 assessment

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:

• Top - The subject of this article is a must-have for a print encyclopedia. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Christianity articles
• High - The subject of this article contributes a depth of knowledge regarding Christianity. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Christianity articles
• Mid - The article fills in more minor details regarding Christianity in general. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Christianity articles
• Low - The article is about a topic that is mainly of specialist interest in the general field of Christianity. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Christianity articles
• Unknown - Any article which has not yet been assessed on the importance scale is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance Christianity articles.

Importance scale

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.	A reader who is not all that familiar with Christianity will likely be familiar with the subject and many details of it.		Noah's Ark
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.	Ark of the Covenant
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.	Aarhus Cathedral

Requesting an assessment

If you have made significant changes to an article and would like an outside opinion on a new rating for it, please feel free to list it below.

Requested Assessments

• Edict of Torda - a FA candidate about an early example of religious tolerance in Europe and it needs comprehensive reviews. Thank you for your time and work. Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2022 (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.

—Proposed deletion and redirect to Practical Theology. Brian (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Completed Assessments

• Christianity in Nepal - I have completely rewritten this article, with thorough sourcing and fairly comprehensive coverage.--Iankgibson (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• New International Version - Think it should be rated as either top or high

Assessed as C High. JohnThorne (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Passion Conferences - Assessed as a stub a few years ago, I've developed it heavily. Awsomaw (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Assessed as B Mid.JohnThorne (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Sarah Ryan (Methodist) is unassessed. Hemarcello (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Assessed as B Low. JohnThorne (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Evangelical Heritage Version - This is unassessed and this looks like the only place to request it be assessed. LittlePuppers (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2018 (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)

• Howard Thurman - I've been working to extend and clean up this article. --JUN1U5 (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2017 (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)

• Philippine Council of Evangelical Churches Arius1998 (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hymns Ancient and Modern - I've extended this article considerably and I request that a new assessment is made.

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)

• Congregation of Christian Brothers - Structural cleanup and added infobox. Article is currently rated start but I think it should be updated to C.Tomh903 (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

• La Luz del Mundo Church - Extensive cleanup, and referencing. Article has been revised and expanded. Ajaxfiore (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2013 (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)

• Mark Dever ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (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)

• Tetragrammaton. Please reassess this article. (See Talk:Tetragrammaton#Layout/Title changes. Thanks,   — Jasonasosa 08:29, 14 July 2012 (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)

• Divinization (Christian) - Did an extensive cleanup and citation cleanup. Please reassess and rate importance. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2012 (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)

• Confession of 1967. This article was taken from a start class and needs reassessment. Hec7 (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2011 (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)

• Ancient Church Orders: new article. Apostolic Tradition expanded from Stub. Verona Palimpsest and Alexandrine Sinodos new. All articles about Church Orders need assessment or re-assessment. Thanks A ntv (talk) 16:53, 18 September 2010 (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)

• Freedom of religion in the United States Has not been assessed at all in any wikproject.--ARTEST4ECHO (^talk/_contribs) 16:21, 22 November 2010 (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)

• Christ of Europe, it is in a holy trinity, i.e. bordering between religion, history, and sociology ;-)--Stor stark7 ^Speak 14:39, 5 February 2010 (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)

• 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)

Assessed by User:Dthomsen8 as C class on 31 March 2021. —Brian (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• The Chosen (TV series) - This article has been rated a stub since it started in 2019 and looked like this. It has changed significantly and a lot of the original issues have been addressed, with now new issues creeping in. It could use a re-assessment and some guidance on where to take it from here. Thanks in advance! ButlerBlog (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Assessed by User:Bilorv C Low on 21 May 2021 —Brian (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Glorify - I created this article based on research I did after discovering this app. I honestly don't know if it really belongs here as it's not really a historical article but rather a flash of current culture. I also would not be surprised if this request will be laughed out of the project, but if someone in this group is willing to check it out and improve it if desired, or vote on it (it's been nominated for deletion, but the reason doesn't jive with me since there are 14 very credible, reliable sources I pulled information from and editors (who I had issues with on another page) and admins alike are voting to delete it saying the sources are bad, which I disagree with. The context of creating this article was that it's interesting the bridging of technology and Christianity, especially the quick adoption in Latin America of using online tools to connect with God. And endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But if it truly reads as an advertisement, I'd like to hear it from any eyeballs willing to give it a glance, and an honest, unbiased vote of course. Many thanks. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted on 29 June 2022 —Brian (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

  Paul the Black rated B Low Brian (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Peter III of Callinicum assessed as B Low; Athanasius I Gammolo confirmed as B low. Brian (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2022 (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)

  Assessed as C Mid. Brian (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

Not part of Wikiproject Christianity. Brian (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

• Anglican Catholic Church - I have completely updated the Article, removed out-of-date information and created all new sections. I believe it is no longer "Start" class, and request a new assessment. SAWassen (talk) 19:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)SAWassen

  Reassessed as C low. Brian (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Guns into Plowshares - A new article I created about a sculpture by two Mennonite artists. Looking for an initial assessment. Thank you! Brian (talk) 19:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

  Reassessed as C Mid by JohnThorne on 19 October 2022. Brian (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Biblical criticism - recently assessed GA, I would like to have it assessed for possible FA. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

  Was put up for promotion in October 2018 and again in December 2020. Brian (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Assessment log

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