| Bible articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 FA
|
1 | 4 | 3 | 8 | |||
| FM
|
9 | 9 | |||||
 GA
|
6 | 7 | 19 | 20 | 1 | 53 | |
| B | 111 | 111 | 165 | 168 | 50 | 605 | |
| C | 260 | 657 | 1,173 | 845 | 92 | 3,027 | |
| Start | 123 | 67 | 226 | 2,137 | 1 | 130 | 2,684 |
| Stub | 1 | 4 | 44 | 729 | 69 | 847 | |
| List | 2 | 31 | 81 | 39 | 9 | 162 | |
| Category | 1,181 | 1,181 | |||||
| Disambig | 2 | 28 | 30 | ||||
| File | 23 | 23 | |||||
| Portal | 207 | 207 | |||||
| Project | 13 | 13 | |||||
| Redirect | 1 | 30 | 48 | 59 | 485 | 623 | |
| Template | 217 | 217 | |||||
| NA | 2 | 1 | 3 | ||||
| Other | 19 | 19 | |||||
| Assessed | 504 | 908 | 1,760 | 4,004 | 2,183 | 352 | 9,711 |
| Total | 504 | 908 | 1,760 | 4,004 | 2,183 | 352 | 9,711 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 32,531 | Ω = 4.50 | |||||
WikiProject Bible| General information | |
| Main project page | talk |
| Members | talk |
| Contest | talk |
| Coordinators | talk |
| General Forum | talk |
| Reading list | talk |
| Bible portal | talk |
| Project category | talk |
| Departments | |
| Assessment | talk |
| Maintenance | talk |
| Outreach | talk |
| Peer review | talk |
| Tasks | |
| Adopted topics | talk |
| Articles needing attention | talk |
| Articles needing cleanup | talk |
| Article requests | talk |
| Deletions | talk |
| Destubbification campaign | talk |
| Work groups | |
| Biblical criticism | talk |
| Christianity | talk |
| Judaism | talk |
| Ancient Near East | talk |
| Religious texts | talk |
| Templates | |
{{Portal|Bible}}
| |
| {{WikiProject Bible}} | |
| {{User WikiProject Bible}} | |
| {{Bible-stub}} | |
| edit · recent Bible-related changes |
Welcome to the assessment department of the Bible WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Bible 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 {{WikiProject Bible}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Bible articles by quality and Category:Bible articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Bible}} project banner on its talk page: {{WikiProject Bible|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 Bible articles) | FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Bible articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Bible articles) | GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Bible articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Bible articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Bible articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Bible articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Bible articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Bible articles) | List |
For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:
After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.
| 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:
Afeatured 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
Agood 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 listorset 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 |
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Bible}} project banner on its talk page:
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | The article is one of the core topics about the Bible. Generally, this is limited to those articles that are included as sections of the main Bible article. | A reader who is not involved in the Biblical field 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. | Bible |
| High | The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding Bible. | |||
| Mid | The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of the Bible. | 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 the Bible. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people involved in the history of the Bible will be rated in this level. | |
| Low | The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of the Bible. | Readers who are not Bible students will likely not be familiar with the subject matter. The reader probably 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 the Bible, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. |
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.
| Bible articles: Index · Statistics · Log |