Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment/Archive 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive of completed assessments from 2019–2022, ordered by date of response (not request).

Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C High. JohnThorne (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Mid.JohnThorne (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Low. JohnThorne (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid.JohnThorne (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Low.JohnThorne (talk) 21:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congregation of St. Basil - Would appreciate all help in updating this page. As a new user, all assistance in this area would be so helpful. How do we move our page up within the 'to do list' of the wikiproject?
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Magdalene asylum - New section added which suggests that it presents the entire Roman Catholic perspective regarding the Magdalene Laundries run in Ireland. References and neutrality need another set of eyes to look at this section. Taram (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as GA Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • St James the Great, St Kilda East - have added extensive references and detail of early days, and the controversy surrounding the Epiphany Window and the execution of Ronald Ryan. I understand that the page remains a work in progress, but would value rating and assessment. Adamm 12:45, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas the Apostle. I would like to propose this for a re-assessment as it does not appear to be B-class. There are almost a dozen "citation needed" tags (placed by someone other than me) and at least one of the numbered refs doesn't appear to correspond (i.e., a cite to "AFM" shows as "3", "5", and "15", where 3 & 5 correctly link to something else entirely. Finally, there is a detectable POV seemingly promoting the Syrian Christian Church.Mannanan51 (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Mannanan51[reply]
Assessed as B High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:28, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biblical canon I have been working tirelessly over a month, reworking this article with limited resources, and using when possible what was already mostly available within the article itself and related articles. I think this is important, as related articles sometimes contradict one another. Especially of note are how thorough the tables are now. I am also proud of the re-worked section on the Mormon canon. Clearly, there is still work to be done, especially with the citations.... just looking for feedback, and a possibly higher rating.
Assessed as B Top. JohnThorne (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting. This article is a complete posting by the webmaster of Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting after coordination with the Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting staff to replace the stub article. Please Evaluate. (Ohio Valley Yearly Meeting) 21 December 2011 UTC
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C High. JohnThorne (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment: Talk:Ancient Church Orders: C Mid. Talk: Apostolic Tradition C Mid. Talk:Verona Palimpsest C Low; Talk:Alexandrine Sinodos C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Low. JohnThorne (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as C Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christ myth theory -- After finally outlasting the resolve of vandals and mythers, this page has made serious progress in the last two weeks in terms of sourcing and content. I've submitted it for GA review and I'd love to see it go from a B to an A in its qualty ranking. Either of these attainments will help forestall future attempts to hijack the article for promotional purposes. Eugeneacurry (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed as B Mid. JohnThorne (talk) 22:46, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carolingian cross - I have essentially written an entire article for this topic, conducted extensive historical research into this cross symbol, linked it up to many other topics that share the same historicity, and have hopefully written an article that objectively discusses the Carolingian cross and its history. I would be very grateful for someone to assess this article as I have put an entire semester of work into it. --Radical Contrarian (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed by User:Dthomsen8 as C class on 31 March 2021. —Brian (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chosen (TV series) - This article has been rated a stub since it started in 2019 and looked like this. It has changed significantly and a lot of the original issues have been addressed, with now new issues creeping in. It could use a re-assessment and some guidance on where to take it from here. Thanks in advance! ButlerBlog (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Assessed by User:Bilorv C Low on 21 May 2021 —Brian (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glorify - I created this article based on research I did after discovering this app. I honestly don't know if it really belongs here as it's not really a historical article but rather a flash of current culture. I also would not be surprised if this request will be laughed out of the project, but if someone in this group is willing to check it out and improve it if desired, or vote on it (it's been nominated for deletion, but the reason doesn't jive with me since there are 14 very credible, reliable sources I pulled information from and editors (who I had issues with on another page) and admins alike are voting to delete it saying the sources are bad, which I disagree with. The context of creating this article was that it's interesting the bridging of technology and Christianity, especially the quick adoption in Latin America of using online tools to connect with God. And endorsed by the Archbishop of Canterbury. But if it truly reads as an advertisement, I'd like to hear it from any eyeballs willing to give it a glance, and an honest, unbiased vote of course. Many thanks. The Real Serena JoyTalk 19:09, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted on 29 June 2022 —Brian (talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not part of Wikiproject Christianity. Brian (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Assessment/Archive_2&oldid=1142559730"