Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Assessment

Bible articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		2	4	3			9
FM					9		9
GA	6	7	20	21		2	56
B	114	112	161	180		49	616
C	258	653	1,157	857		94	3,019
Start	122	69	251	2,155		176	2,773
Stub	1	2	19	714		29	765
List	2	31	82	48		10	173
Category					1,150		1,150
Disambig				1	29		30
File					23		23
Portal					207		207
Project					13		13
Redirect	2	36	70	61	513		682
Template					215		215
NA					2		2
Other					24		24
Assessed	505	912	1,764	4,040	2,185	360	9,766
Total	505	912	1,764	4,040	2,185	360	9,766
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 32,491			Ω = 4.49

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

Related WikiProjects
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.

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 Bible 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.

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Banner Shell}}. Articles that have the {{WikiProject Bible}} 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 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:

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

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: 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.	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: 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; 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.	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: 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.	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 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.	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

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

{{WikiProject Bible| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top - The article is about one of the core topics of the Bible. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Bible articles
• High - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of the Bible. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Bible articles
• Mid - The article is about a topic within the Bible field that may or may not be commonly known outside the Bible community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Bible articles
• Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the Bible field and is not generally common knowledge outside the community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Bible articles
• Unknown - Any article which has not yet been assessed on the importance scale is automatically added to the Category:Unknown-importance Bible articles.

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.

1. Sermon on the mount ---- Kkrystian 14:19 (UTC+1) 24 Dec 2006
2. Jezebel ---- Smeat75 (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
3. Biblical criticism ---- Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:09, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

• List of Gospels renamed to List of gospels.

• List of gospels (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as List-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• 13 Kohanic cities (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• The Bible Experience (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• The Epistle to the Romans (Barth book) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Theodore Henry Robinson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• V. Philips Long (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• William Varner (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Woman of Thebez (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

• Draft:MM Mkhize (talk) removed.

• Ahitub (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to List-Class. (rev · t)
• Papyrus 83 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Papyrus 84 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Papyrus Berlin 17213 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Papyrus Palau-Ribes 163 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Pastoral Bible (Chinese) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Philip Satterthwaite (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Robert Polzin (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Sabbath (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to List-Class. (rev · t)
• Scott J. Hafemann (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Sitz im Leben (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Skevra Evangeliary (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Smadar Rosensweig (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Song-Uttering Choirs (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Stay-at-home daughter (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Succoth-benoth (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

• Daniel in the Lions' Den (Rubens) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Abida (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to List-Class. (rev · t)
• Abiram (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to List-Class. (rev · t)
• Ahihud (biblical figure) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to List-Class. (rev · t)
• Berechiah (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to List-Class. (rev · t)
• Casper (given name) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to List-Class. (rev · t)

• Flight into Egypt (Titian) (talk) removed.

• Abijah (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to List-Class. (rev · t)
• Musée "Bible et Terre Sainte" (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Octateuch (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Oded, father of Azariah (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Ora, daughter of Ur (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Oxford Psalter (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Palia de la Orăștie (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Papyrus 129 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Philoxenian version (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

• 1QIsab (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• 4Q126 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• 4Q127 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• 7Q1 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• A Curious Hieroglyphic Bible (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Alfred Rahlfs' edition of the Septuagint (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Eliakim, son of Hilkiah (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Hitda Codex (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Ilana Pardes (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Joseph: Beloved Son, Rejected Slave, Exalted Ruler (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Maudramnus Bible (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Michael B. Shepherd (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Minuscule 1071 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• New International Commentary on the Old Testament (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• New International Version Inclusive Language Edition (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

• Amalek (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Charles Osazuwa (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Johannes Beutler (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

• Genocide of the Amalekites (talk) removed.

• Amalek renamed to Genocide of the Amalekites.

• Carl Siegfried (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Codex Ambrosianus C. 313 Inf. (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Durham Gospels (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• Eliakim, son of Hilkiah (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
• First Bible of Charles the Bald (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

• Genocide of the Amalekites (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)