Religion articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	18	9	23	35			85
FL	1	1		5			7
A	1						1
GA	68	19	58	171		2	318
B	528	257	454	985		281	2,505
C	632	330	787	2,463		542	4,754
Start	437	186	651	3,887		1,143	6,304
Stub	3	5	48	1,663		518	2,237
List	6	24	68	270		99	467
Category					14,944		14,944
Disambig					91		91
File					161		161
Portal					337		337
Project					68		68
Redirect	17	6	37	183	1,058		1,301
Template					629		629
NA					16		16
Other	1			2	197		200
Assessed	1,712	837	2,126	9,664	17,501	2,585	34,425
Unassessed						7	7
Total	1,712	837	2,126	9,664	17,501	2,592	34,432
WikiWork factors (?)		ω =72,110			Ω = 4.45

Welcome to theassessment department of the Religion WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Religion related articles. While much of the work is done in conjunction with theWP: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{{WPReligion}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories ofCategory:Religion articles by quality andCategory:Religion articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for anautomatically generated worklist.

How can I get my article rated?

Please list it in thesection for assessment requests below.

Who can assess articles?

Any member of the Religion 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 thesection 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 recorded using the|class= parameter in the {{WikiProject banner shell}}. Articles that have the{{WikiProject Religion}} banner template on their talk page will be added to the appropriate categories by quality.

The following standard grades may be used to describe the quality of mainspace articles (seeWikipedia:Content assessment for assessment criteria):

FA	(forfeatured articlesonly; adds them to theFA-Class Religion articles category)		FA
FL	(forfeatured listsonly; adds them to theFL-Class Religion articles category)		FL
A	(for articles that passed a formalpeer reviewonly; adds them to theA-Class Religion articles category)		A
GA	(forgood articlesonly; adds them to theGA-Class Religion articles category)		GA
B	(for articles that satisfy all of theB-Class criteria; adds them to theB-Class Religion articles category)		B
C	(for substantial articles; adds them to theC-Class Religion articles category)		C
Start	(for developing articles; adds them to theStart-Class Religion articles category)		Start
Stub	(for basic articles; adds them to theStub-Class Religion articles category)		Stub
List	(forstand-alone lists; adds them to theList-Class Religion articles category)		List
NA	(for any other pages where assessment is unwarranted; adds them to theNA-Class Religion pages category)		NA
???	(articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in theUnassessed Religion articles category)		???

For non-mainspace content, the following values may be used:

The following non-standard assessment grades for mainspace content may be used at a WikiProject's discretion:

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 attainedfeatured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured article criteria: Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting thepolicies 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 areverifiable against high-qualityreliable sources and are supported by inline citationswhere appropriate; neutral: it presents viewsfairly and without bias; stable: it is not subject to ongoingedit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and compliant withWikipedia's copyright policy and free ofplagiarism ortoo-close paraphrasing. It follows thestyle guidelines, including the provision of: a lead: a conciselead 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 hierarchicalsection headings; and consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—seeciting sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required. Media. It hasimages and other media, where appropriate, with succinctcaptions andacceptable copyright status. Images follow theimage use policy.Non-free images or media must satisfy thecriteria for inclusion of non-free content andbe labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and usessummary 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.	Baháʼí Faith
FL	The article has attainedfeatured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaginglead 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 aresourced where they appear, and they provideinline citations if they contain any of thefour kinds of material absolutely required to have citations. (c) In length and/or topic, it meets all of the requirements forstand-alone lists and includes at minimum eight items; does not violate thecontent-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 andtable sort facilities. Style. It complies with theManual of Style and its supplementary pages. (a)Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting,tables, andcolour; and a minimal proportion of items are redlinked. (b)Media files. It hasimages and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia'susage policies, with succinctcaptions.Non-free images and other media satisfy thecriteria for the inclusion of non-free content andare labeled accordingly. (c)Accessibility. Ituses proper formatting to beaccessible to all readers.Bulleted and unbulleted lists andtables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilizealternative (alt) text. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoingedit 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.	N/A
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 theA-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described inWikipedia: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 afeatured 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.	N/A
GA	The article meetsall of thegood article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers fromWP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria Agood article is: Well-written: the prose is clear, concise, andunderstandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with theManual of Style guidelines forlead sections,layout,words to watch,fiction, andlist incorporation. Verifiable withno original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance withthe layout style guideline; reliable sources arecited inline. All content thatcould 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 containsno original research; and it contains nocopyright violations orplagiarism. Broad in its coverage: it addresses themain aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (seesummary 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 ongoingedit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, bymedia such asimages,video, oraudio: media aretagged with theircopyright statuses, andvalid non-free use rationales are provided fornon-free content; and media arerelevant to the topic, and havesuitable 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 existingfeatured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing.	Thelema
B	The article meetsall of theB-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reachgood article standards. More detailed criteria The article issuitably referenced, withinline citations. It hasreliable sources, and any important or controversial material which islikely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of<ref> tags andcitation 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 anA-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 alead 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 beof the standard of featured articles. TheManual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, aninfobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in anappropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background andtechnical 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 theManual of Style and relatedstyle guidelines.	Christianity
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 substantialcleanup. 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 solvecleanup problems.	Scientology
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 toreliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon.	Another Gospel
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.	Church of the Truth
List	Meets the criteria of astand-alone list orset 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 new religious movements
Category	Anycategory falls under this class.	Categories are mainly used to group together articles within a particular subject area.	Large categories may need to be split into one or more subcategories. Be wary of articles that have been miscategorized.	Category:Religion
Disambig	Anydisambiguation page falls under this class.	The page serves to distinguish multiple articles that share the same (or similar) title.	Additions should be made as new articles of that name are created. Pay close attention to the proper naming of such pages, as they often do not need "(disambiguation)" appended to the title.	Gods (disambiguation)
File	Any page in thefile namespace falls under this class.	The page contains an image, a sound clip or other media-related content.	Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited.	File:Religious syms.svg
Portal	Any page in theportal namespace falls under this class.	Portals are intended to serve as "main pages" for specific topics.	Editor involvement is essential to ensure that portals are kept up to date.	Portal:Religion
Project	AllWikiProject-related pages fall under this class.	Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development.	Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project.	Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion
Redirect	Anyredirect falls under this class.	The page redirects to another article with a similar name, related topic or that has been merged with the original article at this location.	Editor involvement is essential to ensure that articles are not mis-classified as redirects, and that redirects are not mis-classified as articles.	Calvary Chapel Church
Template	Anytemplate falls under this class. The most common types of templates includeinfoboxes andnavboxes.	Different types of templates serve different purposes. Infoboxes provide easy access to key pieces of information about the subject. Navboxes are for the purpose of grouping together related subjects into an easily accessible format, to assist the user in navigating between articles.	Infoboxes are typically placed at the upper right of an article, while navboxes normally go across the very bottom of a page. Beware of too many different templates, as well as templates that give either too little, too much, or too specialized information.	Template:Religion topics
NA	Any non-article page that fits no other classification.	The page contains no article content.	Look out for misclassified articles. Currently, many NA-class articles may need to be re-classified.	N/A

An article's importance assessment is generated from theimportance parameter in the{{WikiProject Religion}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Religion| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

• Top – The article is about one of the core topics of religion as listed in{{Religion topics}}. Adds articles toCategory:Top-importance Religion articles
• High – The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of religion. Adds articles toCategory:High-importance Religion articles
• Mid – The article is about a topic within the religion field that may or may not be commonly known outside the religion community. Adds articles toCategory:Mid-importance Religion articles
• Low – The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the religion field and is not generally common knowledge outside the religion community. Adds articles toCategory:Low-importance Religion articles
• Unknown – Any article which is not assessed on the importance scale is automatically added to theCategory:Unknown-importance Religion articles.

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 atWikipedia:WikiProject Religion/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.

1. Alpha_et_Omega New text with many new refs added and general clean-up, should now be higher than Start Class.
2. Catholic Church-Requesting review of this article to raise it above C-class status, as editors have made significant improvement.TopazStar (talk)16:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Bhagavad Gita - Requesting review for GA quality class, as I have majorly re-organized and cleaned it up.Adelle Frank (talk)21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Taoic religion - Recently passedGA review. Started withthis, expanded it tothis, which includeseditor notes for expansion, earningthe GA pass. Looking for outside input to see if others think this would appropriately be rated A-Class and what project participants think needs to be done to pass aWP:FAC review.Vassyana10:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. Ismailism - I recently rewrote most of the article and have tried to make it as high quality as I could. --Enzuru21:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sant Nirankari Mission - I have added new content and done as much referencing as I could. I would need some sort of rating and comments to make it even better. Would appreciate your feedback. Thanks!
7. Ayyavazhi - An extremely well-referenced and lengthy article which is written in Summary style with main article for each sections. It seems right to fit as a Good article. Any one pls tale a look into it.
8. Sai Baba of Shirdi - it's just received GA status and I think it could be brought to A class.Kkrystian17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Tamara Siuda -- Significant changes have been made in the past month or so, including layout, content, and the addition of a variety of references. Was not rated under the Religion project before, I believe now to be "GA".IanCheesman (talk)20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Kemetic Orthodoxy -- Complete re-write took place over the past few months, including layout, content, and references. Article is now more than four times the original size, and layout is largely based on that of other religion pages. Was not rated under the Religion project before, I believe now to be "GA".IanCheesman (talk)20:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. Share International -- New information added about essential philosophy, incorrect information deleted, new pictures addedCamillaworld 15:22,8 August 2008 (UTC)
12. Lynn de Silva -- New biography article. It has been refined and reviewed quite a bit over the past few months, so I would appreciate your rating and feedback. Thanks!Ldesilva (talk)03:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. History of religions -- I would think this to be a high importance article, but its currently lacking in many ways. Reading through the talk page, it seems like it has been fomred by a bad merge of two other articles.KalevTait (talk)18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Religions of Kerala -- I think this is a very intersting article considering unique mixture of people of different faiths in this Indian state. This article still requires some images and has still incomplete sections.Sarvagyana guru (talk)06:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Dawoodi Bohra -- Please rate as I made some changes to the article. It was not rated beforeSherenk (talk)08:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. Mithraic Mysteries -- I have made a lot of changes to this controversial and previously rather dodgy article. A new rating would probably be appropriate.Roger Pearse (talk)21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Sol Invictus -- Most parts of this article have been completely rewritten.
18. Theology -- extensively rewritten, referenced, and cleaned up since last quality assessment (C). --mahigton (talk)00:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
19. Mormonism and Islam -- Huge rewrite, major additions; this article hasn't yet been rated by this particular project. Would appreciate your opinion on it. -Ecjmartin (talk)02:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
20. Joseph Campbell -- I haven't been able to find when the last review of the article was; it has been greatly improved over the last year and a half, and would be worth a fresh review.David Kudler (talk)01:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
21. Ecumenical Institute for Study and Dialogue -- Please review this new article. Thanks!Ldesilva (talk)14:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
22. Creativity (religion) -- A review of this article would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! --SCochran4 (talk)03:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Mithras -- This article has been completely rewritten since February and the talk page suggests the changes were controversial. Could the article be re-rated?— Precedingunsigned comment added by 209.68.2.181 (talk •contribs) 22:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) I played some part in the changes since February, and agree that a new rating would be helpful.Kalidasa 777 (talk)22:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Please assessMoon-God Allah.Nightryder84 (talk)19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. Hyper-Calvinism - I'm planning on doing a rewrite, but need to know where the article stands first.ReformedArsenal (talk)13:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. Kami -- Requesting a review for this article as it has been greatly improved in the last month and might be ready for C class.Pearly18 (talk)00:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
27. Pistis Sophia one of the main sources on gnosticism. Should be of importance for WikiProject religion and needs assessment on quality scale.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk)10:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
28. Jizya- This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale and it's really well written and sourced. Thanks.Truth-seeker2004 (talk)15:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
29. Soka Gakkai- This article had been improved for the pass few month with many citation put into the article. Requesting a review for this article.Kelvintjy (talk)04:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
30. Yahweh - This article's focus is fairly debated, it seems biased, and it may not cover everything that it should. I have not contributed to it personally but question whether a B rating on the quality scale is really appropriate. -KaJunl (talk)16:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
31. Abu Hanifa Mosque - I would appreciate it if this article gets assessed after the amount of hard work that was devoted into it.Hashima20 (talk)20:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
32. Frederick Denison Maurice - Please reassess this article. I have made significant changes.Vejlefjord (talk)22:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
33. Absolute (philosophy) - Reassessment please. I re-did the article from the bones up.CircularReason (talk)08:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
34. Superstition - Currently rated as Top, despite not being listed at{{Religion topics}}. From the scale, I'd consider it as High. I ratedList of superstitions as Mid, but I'd not be averse to a High rating.Paradoctor (talk)14:40, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
35. Ioann Bereslavsky - Not rated article --Yolanda95 (talk)10:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Yolanda95[reply]
36. Christianization has had a total rewrite, and it is no longer a start class article. It is not of low importance as its content covers one of the most singularly important topics in Christianity, listed on the important topics list in two places (aspects and Religion and society), and it does so for all of Christian history.Jenhawk777 (talk)18:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
37. Fifth Monarchists; rewrite and update of "C" Class article, either a "B" or possibly a "GA"?Robinvp11 (talk)14:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
38. Sikhism in Italy - I have significantly updated this article. Completely transformed. Please can get a second review now.--Jattlife121 (talk)14:46, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Catherine of Siena (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed fromC-Class toB-Class.(rev ·t)
• Valerie Pitt (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed fromUnassessed-Class toB-Class.(rev ·t)

• Draft:Abū Muṭīʿ al-Balkhī (talk) assessed. Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)
• Greek Magical Papyri (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Hinomoto Shinseikō (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asStart-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Islamic calendar (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asB-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asTop-Class.(rev ·t)
• Javanese sacred places (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asStart-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asUnknown-Class.(rev ·t)
• Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• List of Catholic bishops in the United States (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asList-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)
• Medea (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)
• Pagan Resurrection (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asRedirect-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)
• Richard Rudgley (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Vengeful ghost (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asStart-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)

• Draft:Om Ashram (talk) removed.
• Scandia Baptist Church (talk) removed.
• Draft:Theodor Liley Clemens (talk) removed.

• Mutilation of "Snippy" the horse (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed fromC-Class toStart-Class.(rev ·t)

• Category:Books about magic (supernatural) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asCategory-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)
• Getting It: The Psychology of est (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asFA-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Golden Bough (Aeneid) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asGA-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Infant Jesus of Prague (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)
• Krama Religion (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asStub-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Draft:St.John's Church, Pahalgam (talk) assessed. Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)
• Valerie Pitt (talk) assessed. Importance assessed asUnknown-Class.(rev ·t)

• Category:Books about magic (talk) removed.
• Draft:Mandragora Magika (talk) removed.
• Draft:Ortodoksi.net (talk) removed.

• Galdr renamed toGalder (incantation).
• Jude the Apostle renamed toJude Thaddeus the Apostle.
• Laurence Thompson renamed toLarry Thompson.

• Suppression of Heresy Act 1414 (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed fromStub-Class toStart-Class.(rev ·t)

• 1991 Iraqi uprisings (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asB-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Category:Draft articles about philosophy and religion (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asCategory-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)
• Galder (incantation) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asB-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Jude Thaddeus the Apostle (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asHigh-Class.(rev ·t)
• Kaphirintiwa (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asStart-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asUnknown-Class.(rev ·t)
• La Llorona (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)
• Laurence Thompson (sinologist) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asUnknown-Class.(rev ·t)
• Muslim Sicily (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asB-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Mutilation of "Snippy" the horse (talk) assessed. Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• Papal States (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asB-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)
• Draft:Role of Women in Shinto Priesthood: History and Modern Trends (talk) assessed. Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)
• Satanic cults (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asRedirect-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)
• File:Snippy the Horse 1967.jpg (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asFile-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)

• Draft:Anura'kai (talk) removed.
• Category:Draft articles on philosophy and religion (talk) removed.
• Category:Drafts about philosophy and religion (talk) removed.
• Category:Ethnoreligious groups in the Republic of Ireland (talk) removed.
• Draft:Mexican syncretic festivals (talk) removed.

• Molko v. Holy Spirit Ass'n for the Unification of World Christianity renamed toMolko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity.

• History of the Nation of Islam (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed fromUnassessed-Class toB-Class.(rev ·t)
• Yae Miko (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed fromB-Class toGA-Class.(rev ·t)

• Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)
• Bao Yi of Shang (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asC-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)
• God and the State (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asStart-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asUnknown-Class.(rev ·t)
• Molko v. Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asRedirect-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asMid-Class.(rev ·t)
• Draft:Sheikh Abubakar MD. Sumaworo (talk) assessed. Importance assessed asNA-Class.(rev ·t)
• Zheng (diviner) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed asStart-Class.(rev ·t) Importance assessed asLow-Class.(rev ·t)

• Category:14th-century Algerian rabbis (talk) removed.
• Draft:YoungHoon Kim (talk) removed.

• WikiProject assessments
• WikiProject Religion