Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church/Assessment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page discusses the assessment of Seventh-day Adventist articles in terms of editorial quality and also the importance of the content. It is currently a work in progress!
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment, the assessment page for the parent WikiProject, and Category:Seventh-day Adventist Church articles with comments.
Contents |
[edit] Quality scale
This section discusses the assessment of article quality for Seventh-day Adventist articles.
Not satisfied with the recent bout of gradings of Seventh-day Adventist articles, largely due to the lack of any clear criteria for both importance and quality. I have included the WP1 grading scheme below as a starting point for quality. It needs to be re-written to reflect specifically Adventist articles. Discussion needs to occur regarding importance. -Fermion 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The following table is transcluded from here:
| Label | Criterion | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 FA{{FA-Class}} |
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. | Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. | No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. | Tourette Syndrome (as of June 2008) |
| FL {{FL-Class}} |
Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured lists" status, and meet the current criteria for featured lists. | Definitive. Outstanding, thorough list; a great source for encyclopedic information. | No further additions are necessary unless new published information has come to light, but further improvements to the text are often possible. | FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008) |
| A {{A-Class}} |
Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy (peer-reviewed where appropriate). Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. | Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points. | Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. | Durian (as of March 2007) |
 GA{{GA-Class}} |
The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise acceptable. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but having completed the Good article designation process is not a requirement for A-Class. | Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, or excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job. | Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time. | International Space Station (as of February 2007) |
| B {{B-Class}} |
Commonly the highest article grade that is assigned outside a more formal review process. Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a comprehensive article. Nonetheless, it has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) or No Original Research (NOR). With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles. | Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work. | Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with. | Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007) has a lot of helpful material but needs more prose content and references. |
| Start {{Start-Class}} |
The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a key element. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following:
|
Useful to some, provides a moderate amount of information, but many readers will need to find additional sources of information. The article clearly needs to be expanded. | Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article still needs to be completed, so an article cleanup tag is inappropriate at this stage. | Real analysis (as of November 2006) |
| Stub {{Stub-Class}} |
The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need extensive work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible. | Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. | Any editing or additional material can be helpful. | Coffee table book (as of July 2005) |
There is also "List" class. I just added "Image" as well, and "Category". I suggest that templates be given "NA" class for now, as there is only a few of them. Other types could also be implemented – see Category:Articles by quality.
[edit] Importance scale
This section discusses the assessment of article importance for Seventh-day Adventist articles.
[edit] Administration
What about articles about the Divisions of the General Conference? A simple solution would be Division = high importance, Union = mid, Local conference = low; but this may be too simplistic. GC itself would also be high (I don't think top is right). Colin MacLaurin 09:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Organizations
[edit] Universities and tertiary colleges
I have assigned Andrews University and Loma Linda University "high" importance, as I understand them to be the top two most notable tertiary institutions. Colin MacLaurin 06:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Primary and high schools
I think most or all of these will be "low" importance – what do you think? Colin MacLaurin (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] People
Assistant professor Julius Nam recently listed 19 individuals he sees as the most influential Adventists in America. Note that this list is not his (POV) favourite Adventists, but (NPOV) those he sees as most influential. This input may help article gradings, although it is North America specific. It may also be time related – less accurate in the future. Colin MacLaurin 13:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Theology
Theology is very important to the Adventist church. Many articles about certain doctrines have been given "high" importance, whereas I have observed many other churches give the same ones "mid" importance typically. I think that "high" importance is justified for major theological topics like Sabbath, conditional immortality and inspiration of Ellen White, given the church's emphasis on theology. I suggest lesser theological topics be given "mid" importance, like the stub (currently) Spirit of Prophecy (Adventist). Colin MacLaurin 09:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-articles
I have given non-encyclopedic or self-referential articles and categories "NA" class. Normal categories get "cat" class.
