Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessments
| Christian music articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
 FA
|
4 | 2 | 4 | 10 | |||
| FL
|
3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 10 | ||
 GA
|
22 | 34 | 59 | 4 | 119 | ||
| B | 4 | 39 | 57 | 84 | 20 | 204 | |
| C | 3 | 51 | 192 | 438 | 174 | 858 | |
| Start | 4 | 76 | 130 | 1,739 | 1,104 | 3,053 | |
| Stub | 23 | 59 | 910 | 2 | 828 | 1,822 | |
| List | 1 | 4 | 52 | 65 | 13 | 135 | |
| Category | 4 | 38 | 43 | 593 | 678 | ||
| Disambig | 7 | 7 | |||||
| File | 51 | 10 | 61 | ||||
| Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Project | 2 | 4 | 26 | 32 | |||
| Redirect | 3 | 14 | 104 | 304 | 425 | ||
| Template | 4 | 5 | 11 | 192 | 212 | ||
| Other | 27 | 27 | |||||
| Assessed | 15 | 236 | 589 | 3,509 | 1,162 | 2,143 | 7,654 |
| Unassessed | 1 | 70 | 71 | ||||
| Total | 15 | 236 | 589 | 3,510 | 1,162 | 2,213 | 7,725 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 30,485 | Ω = 5.02 | |||||
Welcome to the assessment department of the Christian music WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Christian music 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 {{Christianmusic}} banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Christian music articles by quality and Category:Christian music articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Frequently asked questions[edit]
- 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 Christian music 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.
Instructions[edit]
Quality assessments[edit]
An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{WikiProject Christian music}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Christian music|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 Christian music articles) | FA |
|
| A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Christian music articles) |  A |
|
| GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Christian music articles) | GA |
|
| B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Christian music articles) | B | |
| C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Christian music articles) | C | |
| Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Christian music articles) | Start | |
| Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Christian music articles) | Stub | |
| FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Christian music articles) | FL |
|
| List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Christian music 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.
Quality scale[edit]
| 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.
|
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.[under discussion] | 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. | 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:
|
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 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 |
Importance assessment[edit]
An article's importance assessment is generated from the importance parameter in the {{Christianmusic}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{Christianmusic| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
- Top - The article is about one of the core topics of Christian music. Adds articles to Category:Top-importance Christian music articles
- High - The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of Christian music. Adds articles to Category:High-importance Christian music articles
- Mid - The article is about a topic within the Christian music field that may or may not be commonly known outside the Christian music community. Adds articles to Category:Mid-importance Christian music articles
- Low - The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the Christian music field and is not generally common knowledge outside the religion community. Adds articles to Category:Low-importance Christian music articles
- Unknown - Any articles not specifically rated for importance automatically fall in the Category:Unknown-importance Christian music articles.
Importance scale[edit]
- Generally
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top | The article is one of the core topics about Christian music. | A reader who is not involved in the field of Christian music 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. | Christian music |
| High | The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding Christian music. This article is fairly important to this project; The subject of an article in this category is likely well known and influential in Christian music, and known in the general market as well, within their musical genre. | |||
| Mid | The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the history of Christian music. Subject contributes to the total scope of the project, and may not necessarily be famous. Subject fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. | 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 Christian music. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. | |
| Low | The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Christian music. Subject contributes to the total scope of the project. Subject is not likely famous, even inside Christian music circles. The subject is likely included primarily to achieve comprehensive coverage of another topic, such as an album by artist who themselves may be of a greater significance. | Few readers outside the Christian music field or its fans 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 Christian music, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of Christian music. |
- Specifically
| Status | Artists | Albums |
|---|---|---|
| High | • Multi-Dove (excluding album, song, specialty (packaging, others) categories) • any Grammy winner • Biographical inclusion in general market reference sources • Foremost Christian artist in a musical genre |
• Grammy winner • RIAA certification Gold or higher |
| Mid | • Single Dove (same exclusions as above) • Multi-Dove (all categories) • Grammy nominee |
• Dove winner (excluding specialty (packaging, others) categories) • Grammy nominee |
| Low | Others | |
Given the number and variety of articles with which this project shall be dealing, I believe that we should devote a good deal of attention in the short run to determining which of the articles we consider to be of greatest importance to the project. We now have a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christian music/Assessment/Top-importance articles where we can discuss which articles should receive top-importance ranking. Any and all input is more than welcome.
Requesting an assessment[edit]
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 (but above the following Assessment log section).
Lecrae - currently listed as mid-importance. Is not a Grammy winner, but he is indisputably the foremost artist in his genre (no, TobyMac doesn't count). Beyond that, he is one of the foremost artists in the Christian music scene, often named along with Smitty, TobyMac, and Chris Tomlin, and his latest album went No. 1 on Billboard.--¿3family6 contribs 14:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Gravity (Lecrae album)- the article was just assessed, but I feel the low importance listing is wrong. The album is a Grammynominatedaward-winning album by the most prominent Christian hip hop artist and one of the most prominent artists right now in Christian music period. This album is known outside strictly Christian circles, receiving coverage from publications like Billboard, Complex and XXL, and reviews from AllHipHop and RapReviews.com. Within Christian circles it was highly anticipated and Rapzilla called it "the most important album in the history of Christian Hip-Hop."--¿3family6 contribs 15:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Done Rated as a mid-importance Flofor15 (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Steve Bell (musician) (no major recent changes, but newly project-tagged)-- Done Rated as Start Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)John Elefante-- Done Rated as Start Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)DecembeRadio—Zeagler (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC) -- Done Rated as B Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Deitiphobia (major overhaul, currently stub)– Ryu Ike (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC) -- Done Rated as B Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Jacob Moon- deleted a few days ago due to shaky notability, re-created by me yesterday. Should meet Project Music notability now, would appreciate Project Christian music opinion. A propos, I didn't create the previous version. Petersent (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC) -- Done Change rating from B to Start Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Carolyn Arends- currently rated as Stub, does it qualify as Start? Petersent (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC) -- Done Rated as Start Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Jon Bauer- currently unrated. Petersent (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC) -- Done Rated as Start Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Amanda Falk- currently unrated. Petersent (talk) 01:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) -- Done Rated as Start Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Phil Wickham- I completely re-wrote this article some time ago. Today an editor removed the stub class, but I feel that the article is much improved and needs re-assesment. Thanks! Wikiwikikid (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC) - Done - This is currently rated a C Class article. Tuxhedoh (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)- Made to Love should be at least "Start", because it is full of important information. Importance debatably higher. Also, please post suggestions on the Talk Page!
- Almost There (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toa Nidhiki05 00:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Christmas musicwould seem to have risen above Start Class. Maybe it's closer to a B now? Artaxerxes (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC) -- Done B-class now.--¿3family6 contribs 17:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)- Home for Christmas (BarlowGirl album) has recently been edited, but hasn't been checked against B-class criteria on either WikiProject Albums or this CCM WikiProject. Does the article meet B-class criteria? Could you please let me know? I also believe that, at least for the CCM WikiProject, the importance rating should be higher than "Low" because this project is from a big CCM artist (BarlowGirl) and has made significant strides on both album and singles charts. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Assessment log[edit]
| Christian music articles: Index · Statistics · Log |
- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
April 26, 2024[edit]
Reassessed[edit]
- Elektracustika (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
- Great Four Anglican Hymns (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Das Göttliche (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Gregorian Institute of Paris (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Hymnary.org (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Hymns of Universal Praise (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Draft:Who Knew It Would Be So Hard To Be Myself (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
April 24, 2024[edit]
Reassessed[edit]
- Mandisa (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
- Noi vogliam Dio, Vergine Maria (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Tell Out, My Soul (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Draft:Brandon Jevon Farris (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Letter to the Exiles (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Our God, Our Help in Ages Past (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
April 23, 2024[edit]
Reassessed[edit]
- King's X (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
- Liber Usualis (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Template:Iona (band) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Template-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Misa Campesina Nicaragüense (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Tell Out, My Soul (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
April 22, 2024[edit]
Assessed[edit]
- Sérgio Lopes (musician) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Removed[edit]
- Sérgio Lopes (talk) removed.
April 21, 2024[edit]
Assessed[edit]
- Bread of Stone (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
April 20, 2024[edit]
Assessed[edit]
- Botho-Lucas-Chor (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Metanoia (Chilean band) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)