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	65		4	125
B	4	39	60	92		31	226
C	3	56	199	467		219	944
Start	4	72	130	1,800		1,171	3,177
Stub	1	23	51	916	2	823	1,816
List	1	4	52	67		13	137
Category					699		699
Disambig					7		7
File					61		61
Project					32		32
Redirect		3	16	122	330		471
Template					214		214
NA				1	7		8
Other					24		24
Assessed	16	227	546	3,535	1,376	2,261	7,961
Unassessed						1	1
Total	16	227	546	3,535	1,376	2,262	7,962
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 31,485			Ω = 5.00

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.

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.

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

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 and includes at minimum eight items; 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 {{Christianmusic}} project banner on its talk page:

{{Christianmusic| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

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.

Generally

Specifically

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.

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)[reply]
• Gravity (Lecrae album) - the article was just assessed, but I feel the low importance listing is wrong. The album is a Grammy nominated award-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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• John Elefante --  Done Rated as Start Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DecembeRadio —Zeagler (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC) --  Done Rated as B Class -- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• Christmas music would 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

• Aretha (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Covenant Awards (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Faithful (Hillsong album) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Liebster Gott, wann werd ich sterben (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Template:Marian hymns (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Template-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Portal:Music (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Portal-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Music Machine (album series) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• People Just Like Us (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Redirect-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Performers of Christian music (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Category-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Third Day (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• Athenas (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Draft:Hal Yoergler (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Hello Human (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Transformation Worship albums (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Hillsong United (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:American performers of Christian hip-hop (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Performers of Christian hip-hop (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:American performers of Christian hip-hop music (talk) removed.
• Category:Performers of Christian hip-hop music (talk) removed.
• Symphony of Heaven (talk) removed.

• 116 (hip-hop group) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Andy Mineo (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• Disciples of Christ (hip-hop group) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:116 (hip-hop group) albums (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:American performers of Christian hip-hop music (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Christian hip-hop (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Christian hip-hop albums (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Christian hip-hop groups (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Performers of Christian hip-hop music (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:116 (hip hop group) albums (talk) removed.
• Category:American performers of Christian hip hop music (talk) removed.
• Category:Christian hip hop (talk) removed.
• Category:Christian hip hop albums (talk) removed.
• Category:Christian hip hop groups (talk) removed.
• Category:Performers of Christian hip hop music (talk) removed.

• Brian Littrell (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Matt Redman (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Template:Tait (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Mid-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Template:Vota (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Bethel Music (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Hawk Nelson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Nigerian gospel singers (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

• Vanishing (song) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as GA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Michelle Tumes (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
• Shaded Red (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• 116 (hip hop group) renamed to 116 (hip-hop group).
• Christian hip hop renamed to Christian hip-hop.
• Disciples of Christ (hip hop group) renamed to Disciples of Christ (hip-hop group).
• List of Christian hip hop artists renamed to List of Christian hip-hop artists.

• Trip Lee (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• 116 (hip-hop group) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Christian hip-hop (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Top-Class. (rev · t)
• Disciples of Christ (hip-hop group) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• List of Christian hip-hop artists (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as List-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)