Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Assessment

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism
(Redirected from Wikipedia:HINDU1)
Shortcut

Quality: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed Importance: Top | High | Mid | Low | Unknown

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Hinduism! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Hinduism 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 recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Hinduism}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Hinduism articles by quality and Category:Hinduism articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions

edit
How do I add an article to the WikiProject?
Just add {{WikiProject Hinduism}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
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 Hinduism WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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?
The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.
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 (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!
How can I keep track of changes in article ratings?
A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the statistics may be more accessible.
How does all this work?
See Using the bot and WikiProject Council Guide.

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

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. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead. Completed requests can be found in the archive.

Please place new requests (in the format, # [[article name]] - ~~~~) at the bottom of the list.

  1. Iravan --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC) It is GA.--Redtigerxyz Talk 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Swaminarayan Sampraday -- Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Demoted to C. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Tridevi (currently stub; what importance?) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Assessed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 10:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non existent Goddess.--Sankarrukku (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Tridevi is, as stated, the conjoined three goddesses Saraswati, Lakshmi, and Parvati (Durga), just as the Trimurti is the conjoined three gods (their consorts) Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. There is no single "the Goddess Tridevi", just as there is no single "the God Trimurti". They are trios, triads, threesomes. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 10:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Kamakhya - Shakta Scholar (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Done --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Karma in Hinduism Raj2004 (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC) This wikiproject can not give a higher grade, apply for WP:GA status. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Spiritual Heritage of India (book) and The Principal Upanishads (book) were both recently created by me, and both recently assessed by the same editor as start-class. This confuses me, because start class seems to imply "lack of reliable sources" (see quality scale), and I believe that both of these articles are well-supplied with multiple reliably cited reviews. Could someone explain to me (e.g., on my talk page) what is lacking re RS, or perhaps reassess if the sources are indeed reliable? Many thanks in advance - Health Researcher (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)--Redtigerxyz Talk 17:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Deshastha Brahmin - Thanks for your time in assessing. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Already GA. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Chyavana - Please re-assess the post-expansion article.Joy1963Talk 12:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC) C class --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yoga Vasistha - I can't take any credit for the article apart from a copy edit, but would like to have it assessed. Thanks! Wi2g (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC) C class --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jagannath - Kindly re-assess the article in its present form and context. soft dynamite(talk) 19:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC) Reassessed already. Start -> C --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Vadakalai - Requesting B or C class for the article. The article is well organised and referenced with "60 different sources". The article has valuable contributions about some rare "Vedic Aryan practices in Hinduism" - still practiced today by the corresponding community, while the whole article is very informative on hinduism and brahmins. Kindly assess the quality and importance of the article. Thank You. Hari7478 (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Assessed C with comment. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Requesting a re-assessment of Hinduism in Tamil Nadu and Vaitheeswaran Koil. For Vaitheeswaran Koil, this is the maximum that can be leveraged from the online sources. Vernacular sources are also way to limited or promotional. Thanks. S Sriram(talk - my page - contribs) 23:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)ssriram_mt Assessed --Redtigerxyz Talk 09:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Requesting a re-assessment of Pashupata Shaivism and Gaudapada. Thanks. CorrectKnowledge (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Assessed --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Requesting review for GA quality class for the Bhagavad Gita article, which I have majorly re-organized and cleaned up. Adelle Frank (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Requesting an assessment of List of Hindu temples in Kerala as the list has cleaned up and reconstructed on major scale and also it has not been assessed earlier. - KAS( talk) 06:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Assessed as List class with mid importance. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 17:29, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Onam: This article is more well-detailed now, has more adequate external references, and has been significantly restructured. I request a reassessment. Harivishnu (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC) No change. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:17, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Requesting re-assessment of Importance for Nayanars. I was copyediting the article, but am not sure how the subgroups work on the project, but someone had previously set it to Top. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC) : User:AngusWOOF, the top assessment was done by WP Religion, based on entry in Religion encyclopedias. Sinece it is top for Religion, Hinduism was also upgraded from high to Top. Redtigerxyz Talk 05:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Requesting re-assessment of quality and Importance of Invading the Sacred. This page has been updated and content has been added with suitable references. Adiagr (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Animal sacrifice in Hinduism -Requesting re-assessment of quality and importance.Thanks.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sandhyavandanam - Request to re-asses the quality and importance of the article. An original research has been performed and citations from various valid, reliable, original sources have been added. Thanks.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Śāstra pramāṇam in Hinduism - Request to asses the quality and importance of the article. Thanks.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Savitri Brata - Requesting a brand new assessment for this article. Thank you! Chilicave (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions

edit

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Hinduism}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{WikiProject Hinduism| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

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

edit
WikiProject content quality grading scheme
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. 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;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. 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
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. 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);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. 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
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Importance scale

edit

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 Hinduism.

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.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

Importance standards

edit
  • Epics - Generally classed as top importance.
  • Temples - "Mid" if in India , "High" if outside India, "High" if a well-known temple outside or in India
  • Biographies - "High" if outside India
  • Festivals - Probably High or mid
  • Deities Top should be kept for about only the ten or twenty most famous. Others that appear in famous texts a number of times are High. The rest including local gods and goddesses are Mid.
  • Gurus/Swamis/Charyas/Rishis The founders of major Hindu sects and philosophies are High while their followers and students are either Mid or Low depending on their influence.
  • Mantras/Bhanjans The most important mantras (and bhajan/aarti) relevant to the whole of Hinduism (not sectarian in nature) are High. Other generally famous mantras (sectarian ones included) are High or Mid. The rest, if they even have an article are Low.

Participants

edit
If you would like to join the assessment team, please add your name to the list in alphabetical order. Bold your name if you are currently active and can be approached for an assessment:
  1. Arjun01 (talk · contribs)
  2. EDI (talk · contribs)
  3. Bakasuprman (talk · contribs)
  4. C21K (talk · contribs)
  5. DaGizza (talk · contribs)
  6. DineshSubramaniam (talk · contribs)
  7. Ganeshk (talk · contribs)
  8. GourangaUK (talk · contribs)
  9. Kkrystian (talk · contribs)
  10. Mktnagar (talk · contribs)
  11. Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)
  12. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk · contribs)
  13. Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs)
  14. Shruti14 (talk · contribs)
  15. Souravmohanty2005 (talk · contribs)
  16. Ssriram_mt (talk · contribs) - Hindu Temples
  17. TheRingess (talk · contribs) - I am willing to read articles and attempt to make suggestions on how informative they are to the casual reader.
  18. Kirananils (talk · contribs)
  19. N sahi (talk · contribs)
  20. WP MANIKHANTA (talk · contribs) ☆
  21. Chilicave (talk · contribs)
  22. yamantakks (talk · contribs) -Intrest in articles involving Politics of India and Hindutva Politics, would be happy to prooofread articles, suggest changes and edits

Example assessments

edit
Hinduism articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
  FA 1 2 2 9 14
  FM 20 20
  GA 14 31 64 33 142
B 72 123 154 142 1 46 538
C 47 180 333 492 167 1,219
Start 41 295 818 1,385 8 678 3,225
Stub 5 44 246 1,181 8 706 2,190
List 1 18 30 75 5 52 181
Category 7 19 1,206 1,232
Disambig 53 53
File 1 2 49 52
Portal 72 72
Project 23 23
Redirect 1 32 88 226 401 748
Template 2 1 185 188
NA 7 7
Other 1 1 62 64
Assessed 183 726 1,744 3,566 2,100 1,649 9,968
Unassessed 15 167 182
Total 183 726 1,744 3,581 2,100 1,816 10,150
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 36,039 Ω = 4.92

To assess an article, paste one of the following onto the article's talk page.

Quality

  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|class=FA}} - to rate an article at FA-Class
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|class=A}} - to rate an article at A-Class
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|class=GA}} - to rate an article at GA-Class
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|class=B}} - to rate an article at B-Class
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|class=C}} - to rate an article at C-Class
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|class=Start}} - to rate an article at Start-Class
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|class=Stub}} - to rate an article at Stub-Class
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism}} - to leave the article un-assessed.

Importance

  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=Top}} - to rate an article at Top importance
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=High}} - to rate an article at High importance
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=Mid}} - to rate an article at Mid importance
  • {{WikiProject Hinduism|importance=Low}} - to rate an article at Low importance

Log

edit

The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hinduism/Assessment&oldid=1170977621"