Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject Christianity
WikiProject Christianity
Main project page talk
Members talk
WikiGrail contest talk
Coordinators talk
Reading list talk
Christianity portal talk
Project category talk
Departments
Assessment talk
Outreach talk
Peer review talk
Planning talk
Tasks
Adopted topics talk
Articles needing attention talk
Articles needing cleanup talk
Article requests talk
Deletions talk
Destubbification campaign talk
Work groups
Anabaptist talk
Baptist talk
Christianity in China talk
Christian films talk
Christianity in India talk
Jesus talk
Methodism talk
Syriac Christianity talk
Theology talk
Unitarianism and Universalism talk
Subprojects
Anglicanism talk
Arminianism talk
Bible talk
Biblical criticism talk
Calvinism talk
Catholicism talk
Charismatic Christianity talk
WikiProject Christian music talk
Eastern Orthodoxy talk
Holiness Movement talk
Jehovah's Witnesses talk
Latter Day Saint movement talk
Lutheranism talk
Jewish Christianity talk
Oriental Orthodoxy talk
Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) talk
Saints talk
Seventh-day Adventist Church talk
Templates
{{Portal|Christianity}}
{{WikiProject Christianity}}
{{User WikiProject Christianity}}
{{Christianity-stub}}
{{Church-stub}}
edit · recent changes

Welcome to the assessment department of the Christianity WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's Christianity 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 {{ChristianityWikiProject}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Christianity articles by quality and Category:Christianity articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

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 Christianity 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.

Staff[edit]

These editors work to assess and categorize articles within the scope of the Christianity project. If you'd like to help, sign your name below.

Instructions[edit]

Statistics[edit]

Index · Statistics · Log

Christianity articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA Other ??? Total
FA 10 8 35 119 2 1 175
FL 1 14 20 35
FM 199 1 200
A 1 1 2
GA 22 16 194 429 29 690
B 205 235 787 2,107 310 150 3,794
C 348 799 2,286 6,423 2,331 454 12,641
Start 227 222 1,301 18,354 2 10,239 757 31,102
Stub 13 280 14,677 8,304 353 23,627
List 12 38 698 981 2 75 20 1,826
Category 2 4 9 21,018 1,316 22,349
Disambig 12 299 17 328
File 864 30 894
Portal 1 373 1 375
Project 175 11 186
Redirect 6 34 81 686 1,505 524 1 2,837
Template 2 6 11 2,012 109 2,140
NA 1 1
Other 2 127 129
Assessed 832 1,370 5,686 43,831 26,576 23,300 1,736 103,331
Unassessed 5 97 166 268
Total 832 1,370 5,686 43,836 26,576 23,397 1,902 103,599
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 360,750 Ω = 5.01


Popular pages[edit]

Quality assessments[edit]

An article's quality assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{ChristianityWikiProject}} project banner on its talk page:

{{ChristianityWikiProject|class=???}}

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 Christianity articles)  FA
A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Christianity articles)  A
GA (for good articles only; adds articles to Category:GA-Class Christianity articles)  GA
B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Christianity articles) B
C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Christianity articles) C
Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Christianity articles) Start
Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Christianity articles) Stub
FL (for featured lists only; adds articles to Category:FL-Class Christianity articles)  FL
List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Christianity articles) List

For non-standard grades and non-mainspace content, the following values may be used for the class parameter:

Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class Christianity articles) Category
Disambig (for disambiguation pages; adds pages to Category:Disambig-Class Christianity articles) Disambig
Draft (for drafts; adds pages to Category:Draft-Class Christianity articles) Draft
FM (for featured media only; adds pages to Category:FM-Class Christianity articles)  FM
File (for files and timed text; adds pages to Category:File-Class Christianity articles) File
Portal (for portal pages; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class Christianity articles) Portal
Project (for project pages; adds pages to Category:Project-Class Christianity articles) Project
Redirect (for redirect pages; adds pages to Category:Redirect-Class Christianity articles) Redirect
Template (for templates and modules; adds pages to Category:Template-Class Christianity articles) Template
NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Christianity articles) NA
??? (articles for which a valid class has not yet been provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Christianity articles) ???

After assessing an article's quality, any comments on the assessment can be added to the article's talk page.

Quality scale[edit]

WikiProject article 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.[under discussion] Mortara case
(as of March 2016)
 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. Peter Martyr Vermigli bibliography
(as of August 2016)
 FM Pictures that have attained featured picture status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers from Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates.
More detailed criteria
A featured picture:
  1. Is of a high technical standard.
    • It has good contrast, accurate exposure and neutral colour balance.
    • It shows no significant compression artifacts, burned-out highlights, image noise ("graininess") or other processing anomalies. Examples of common technical problems can be found here.
    • Its main subject is in focus, it has good composition and has no highly distracting or obstructing elements.
    • Exceptions to this rule may be made for historical or otherwise unique images. If it is considered impossible to find a technically superior image of a given subject, lower quality may sometimes be allowed.[1]
  2. Is of high resolution.
    • It is of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality print reproduction. Still images should be a minimum of 1500 pixels in width and height; larger sizes are generally preferred. The size of animated images is judged less strictly, though larger is still preferred. Further information on image size can be found here.
      • Exceptions to this rule may be made where justified on a case-by-case basis, such as for historical, technically difficult or otherwise unique images, if no higher resolution could realistically be acquired. This should be explained in the nomination so that it can be taken into consideration.
      • Note that vector graphics in SVG format omit any requirement for any pixel count.
      • Animations and video may be somewhat smaller.
  3. Is among Wikipedia's best work.
    • It is a photograph, diagram, image or animation which is among the best examples of a given subject that the encyclopedia has to offer.
    • It illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative.
    • A featured picture is not always required to be aesthetically pleasing; it might be shocking, impressive, or just highly informative. Highly graphic, historical and otherwise unique images may not have to be classically beautiful at all. See these examples for a basic guide.
    • commons:Help:Scanning offers advice on preparing non-photographic media (engravings, illustrations from books, etc) in your possession for Wikipedia.
  4. Has a free license. It is available in the public domain or under a free license. Fair use images are not allowed. To check which category a particular image tag falls under, see the list at Wikipedia:File copyright tags.
  5. Adds significant encyclopedic value to an article and helps readers to understand an article.
    • The image is used in one or more articles.[2] It is preferable to wait a reasonable period of time (at least 7 days) after the image is added to the article before nominating it, though this may be ignored in obvious cases, such as replacing a low-resolution version of an image with a higher resolution of the same image.
    • A picture's encyclopedic value (referred to as "EV") is given priority over its artistic value.[3]
  6. Is verifiable. It is supported by facts in the article or references cited on the image page, or is from a source noted for its accuracy. It is not created to propose new original research, such as unpublished ideas or arguments.
  7. Has a descriptive, informative and complete file description in English. A complete file description:
    • Properly identifies the main subject, including Latin and technical names where applicable.
    • Describes the context of the photograph, painting, or other medium. Geotagging photographs of identifiable places is encouraged. This entails providing the coordinates of where the camera was when the medium was recorded to an appropriate degree of precision no less than ~10 km² (see Commons:Geocoding, or Template:Coord if the image is hosted on the English Wikipedia).
    • States the most relevant meta-detail (such as date, location, event, version, etc). It is suggested that additional relevant information that becomes known during the course of the nomination be subsequently included in the file description.
    • May include languages other than English but there must be an English version available that meets this criterion. The file name may be in a language other than English.
  8. Avoids inappropriate digital manipulation.
    • Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive.
    • Typical acceptable manipulation includes cropping, perspective correction, sharpening/blurring, and colour/exposure correction.
    • More extensive manipulation should be clearly described in the image text.
    • Any manipulation which causes the main subject to be misrepresented is unacceptable.
    • Note that this criterion is not relevant to vector-based SVG images, as the entire image is a digital construction.
 The page contains a featured image, sound clip or other media-related content. Make sure that the file is properly licensed and credited. File:Canterbury Cathedral Choir 2, Kent, UK - Diliff.jpg
 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. Mary Magdalene
(as of June 2018)
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 it does not need to be "brilliant". 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. Liberation theology
(as of June 2019)
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. Advocates of Roman congregations
(as of June 2019)
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 Association
(as of June 2019)
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 Ecumenical Patriarchs of Constantinople
(as of June 2019)
Category Any category 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:Christian pacifism
Disambig Any disambiguation 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. Christ (disambiguation)
(as of June 2019)
File Any page in the file 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:Worship of the shepherds by bronzino.jpg
Portal Any page in the portal 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:Anglicanism
Project All WikiProject-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:Naming conventions (clergy)
Redirect Any redirect 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. Christ
(as of April 2019)
Template Any template falls under this class. The most common types of templates include infoboxes and navboxes. 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:Christianity by country
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.

Importance assessment[edit]

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

{{ChristianityWikiProject| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Importance scale[edit]

Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Example
Top The article is one of the core topics about Christianity. Articles in this area should be limited to those which could, reasonably, be found in any encyclopedia regarding Christianity. A reader who is not involved in the field of Christianity will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. Christianity
High The article covers a topic that contributes a depth of knowledge regarding Christianity. A reader who is not all that familiar with Christianity will likely be familiar with the subject and many details of it. Noah's Ark
Mid The article covers a topic that is important to at least one field within the broad field of Christianity, and that contributes relevant details regarding the subject. Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject. Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand Christianity. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. Most people whose involvement with Christianity in general has been of such impact that a broad understanding of Christianity is not possible without some knowledge of them will be rated in this level. Ark of the Covenant
Low The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Christianity. Few readers outside the Christianity field may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of Christianity, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. Topics included at this level include most practices and infrastructure of Christianity. Aarhus Cathedral

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. Once assessed, please add a reply to the request and move the item to 'Completed Assessments'.

Requested Assessments[edit]

Completed Assessments[edit]

  • Theology of relational care: This article has some potentially serious issues; it may even be in the wrong broad topic category. At the very least, either the article name is very non-indicative of the article content, or the article content is severely incomplete and overly exlusive. See its Talk page for more details.
—Proposed deletion and redirect to Practical Theology. Brian (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted on 27 October 2022.

Assessment log[edit]

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


April 25, 2024[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 24, 2024[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 23, 2024[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 22, 2024[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 21, 2024[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 20, 2024[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Gerrie Naughton (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Hood A.M.E. Zion Church (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Kemuel (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Disambig-Class to Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Sebastian Milbank (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Redirect-Class. (rev · t)
  • Tejharuyk Monastery (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

April 19, 2024[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

  1. ^ For example, this image of the Battle of Normandy is grainy, but very few pictures of that event exist. However, where quite a number of pictures exist, for instance, the moon landing, FPC attempts to select the best of the ones produced.
  2. ^ An image has more encyclopedic value (often abbreviated to "EV" or "enc" in discussions) if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributing weakly to many. Adding an image to numerous articles to gain EV is counterproductive and may antagonize both FPC reviewers and article editors.
  3. ^ While effects such as black and white, sepia, oversaturation, and abnormal angles may be visually pleasing, they often detract from the accurate depiction of the subject.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity/Assessment&oldid=1170426986"