Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement/Assessment

message: With the exception of the 'featured article', the idea of rating articles appalls me.  Any rating system can not, by definition, be objective.  I note that 'established criteria' are not article specific and reviews and ratings are not consistent from reviewer to reviewer or from article to article.  Reviewers often are strangers to the topic and do not have knowledge or sources to draw on.  In fact, occasionally, reviewers are 'newbies' with very limited Wiki skills and experience.  I have observed that the rating system can insult and infuriate long time editors and discourage new editors.  So, what is the underlying purpose in the Wiki-wide frenzy on ratings?  Does it have any value in the LDS project?  How does it make the encyclopedia any better?   WBardwin 20:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, people seem to want to be able to draw selections from Wikipedia for a CD or printed version without embarrasing themselves by getting trash.  For that reason I think it's useful to point out that an article is good.  All this without, of course, getting wrapped around the axle about just how good it is.  I would like to see that the project could go through rapidly and mark as many articles as possible with their quality status.  I would hope this could be no big deal.  Tom Haws 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are ratings useful? Opinion

message: For the last few weeks I have been going through articles and rating them in mass, since the project shows hundreds of articles that are unrated.  After rating several hundred, I have a few thoughts on standardizing the rating system for this project, and propose the following:
#The main articles for the biggest branches of the LDS movement should be top importance
#Confusing terms like Mormon and Latter Day Saint should be top importance
#The main articles for the rest of the branches of the LDS movement should be at least mid importance
#The articles treating the founders of the each of the branches of the LDS movement should be at least mid importance
#Articles treating controversial topics or topics that get a lot of media attention should be top importance (FLDS, polygamy, blacks and the priesthood, Mitt Romney, etc.)
#Articles about figures, places, stories, or other things from the Book of Mormon should generally be low importance, unless it is something that really stands out - like the Angel Moroni, but even then, it should not be top importance
#Primary volumes of scripture for each of the branches should be at least mid importance
#Articles about church structure and organization should generally be low importance, except for one or two articles like Quorum of the Twelve which can be mid or possibly high importance.
#Articles about Mormon culture should generally be low importance
#Articles about historical figures and living people should generally be low importance except for people that had a lot of influence, such as past presidents of the church or controversial figures
#Articles about people that are famous or otherwise known for things other than their affiliation with the church should be low importance (e.g. Steve Young, Orson Scott Card)
#Books about the church, both critical and apologetic should be treated individually based on their notability
This is how I have been classifying things in general - obviously there is a lot of judgment involved.  Just wanted to throw this out there and see what you all thought.
In general, I think there are a lot of articles about Mormonism that are all over the place, and this project could use a lot of work to get things into shape.  It would be nice to assess the importance of all of the articles known so that we can focus on the ones that are more important than others.  For example, I have seen a lot of effort go into articles on a specific figure in the BOM that is not well known, but larger topics go neglected.  My 2 cents. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My guide for assessing articles