Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the WikiProject Saints! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Saints articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the WP:1.0 program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the WikiProject Saints project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Saints articles by quality, Category:Saints articles by importance, Category:Saints articles needing attention, Category:Saints past collaborations, and Category:Saints portal selected articles. The quality and importance ratings serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist. There is also Category:NA-Class Saints articles) for things like redirect pages, templates, categories, images, etc.

Frequently asked questions

 * How can I get my article rated? : As a member of the WikiProject Saints, you can do it yourself. If you're unsure, list it in the requesting an assessment section below.
 * Who can assess articles? : Any member of WikiProject Saints is free to add—or change—the rating of an article, but please follow the guidelines.
 * Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? : Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
 * Where can I get more comments about my article? : Contact WikiProject Saints who will handle it or assign the issue to someone. You may also list it for a Peer review.
 * What if I don't agree with a rating? : Relist it as a request or contact WikiProject Saints who will handle it or assign the issue to someone.
 * Aren't the ratings subjective? : Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), but it's the best system we've been able to devise; if you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department, or to contact the WikiProject Saints directly.

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

This is the rating syntax (ratings and dates are samples, change to what applies to the article in question):
 * displays the default banner, showing the project info and only ??? for the quality and importance parameters.
 * all assessed articles should have quality and importance filled in. Leaving the other parameters off does not hurt anything.
 * if an article needs immediate attention, add the attention tag and please leave talk notes as to why. "yes" is the only valid parameter here. If it doesn't need attention, leave the parameter off.
 * if an article has been the SATM or COTM, these tags get added in this format. This is the actual project tag of Philmont Scout Ranch.
 * if an article needs immediate attention, add the attention tag and please leave talk notes as to why. "yes" is the only valid parameter here. If it doesn't need attention, leave the parameter off.
 * if an article has been the SATM or COTM, these tags get added in this format. This is the actual project tag of Philmont Scout Ranch.
 * if an article has been the SATM or COTM, these tags get added in this format. This is the actual project tag of Philmont Scout Ranch.
 * if an article has been the SATM or COTM, these tags get added in this format. This is the actual project tag of Philmont Scout Ranch.

The following values may be used for the class parameter:


 * FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class saints articles)
 * A (adds articles to Category:A-Class saints articles)
 * GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class saints articles)
 * B (adds articles to Category:B-Class saints articles)
 * Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class saints articles)
 * Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class saints articles)
 * NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article saints pages). This means "non-article", NOT non-applicable.

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:


 * Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance saints articles)
 * High (adds articles to Category:High-importance saints articles)
 * Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance saints articles)
 * Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance saints articles)

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

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

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

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

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

''Add articles here! Newest requests on the BOTTOM''


 * Like this - (and put "(re-)assessment request" in your edit summary of this assessment page); leave reasons if a reassessment.
 * Stefan Nemanja. Not rated on the importance scale. Considering that he contributed to the Christian Church world-wide and is a founding father of a nation (and religion to an extent). I can't decide between "High" and "Top". I'd advice "High", better. When talking about Serbs, he's nowhere near Saint Abbas. --PaxEquilibrium 19:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)''
 * Importance is based upon one thing and one thing only:the subject's importance to this project in particular. His position as founder of a nation is really irrelevant to this particular project, and the claim for being founder of a church on that basis is at best tenuous. I'd say "Mid" importance, which would put him on a par with the other figures of significant importance to the smaller churches but of limited importance to Christianity, and thus this project, overall. Top and High importance are basically reserved for those who have a direct impact on all of Christianity, and his influence/impact in that field is rather limited. John Carter 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I would say # Saint Sava. Top, definitely. He founded a religion (a Church) that, together with his Cult lasts for 8 centuries. One of the greatest ecclesiastic contributors on earth and the "holiest" of Serbs' Saints. --PaxEquilibrium 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Top may be pushing it. I recommend High at most. The reason is that he is obviously an extremely important figure in Serbia but his importance in most of the rest of the world is, let's say, not as significant. He's just not in the same class as, say, Saint Peter or Saint Paul of Tarsus. Majoreditor 21:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Majoreditor. Importance is based on global importance to the project overall. His position as first patriarch of the Serbian church upon its separation doesn't really make him the founder of a new church, but more like the first archbishop of a new archdiocese. "High" at most. John Carter 16:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Vincent Strambi - major rewrite of article
 * Our Lady of Good Health - not been assessed yet ώiki Ѕαи Яоzε†αLҝ 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Cainnech of Aghaboe I have made some changes updates and clean ups but I am not sure if I am doing this properly or where to go from here. Any comments or review would be welcome. thanks --Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 06:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice job. I took the liberty of cleaning up a bit. Can I get you to use the "Show preview" button before you save? --Bwpach (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will try to do more. thanks Okeeffe.christopher (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Saint Nectan - major update
 * B-class but could use additional citations. John Carter (talk) 17:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Isaac of Dalmatia - Expanded article quite a bit, added image and infobox. Request reassessment-probably no longer "stub" class. MishaPan (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Saint Modwen - New article, needs rating and also an infobox. Grunners (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Rita of Cascia - major re-write/organization, former casual low-grade writing style re-written in a more formal higher-grade level, most likely a B class now Nitroblu (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Saint Margaret of England - New article, needs rating Organic Cabbage (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Arius rated "Top Importance" by this project; this article has been completely rewritten and reworked from top to bottom. I'd appreciate knowing where it stands now, versus where it was before, together with any suggestions for further improvements.  - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anastasia_of_Sirmium - I fail to understand how Saint Anastasia ranks as "Low" importance, given that she "enjoys the distinction, unique in the Roman liturgy, of having a special commemoration in the second Mass on Christmas Day." Please compare this rating to that of the other seven female saints called out in the Roman Canon: Perpetua_and_Felicity, Saint_Lucy, Agatha_of_Sicily, and Saint_Cecilia are all mid-importance or higher, although Agnes_of_Rome has yet to be rated at all. Of this list, Anastasia's article seems most in need of improvement, considering the relative scarcity of solid information there. 68.207.123.115 (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)