Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)/Past Collaborations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Winter-Summer 2006

Improve the main article, Religious Society of Friends, to featured article status.

  • I tried to comply with the suggestions given during peer review. I am thankful that Paul Carpenter added the picture of the Meeting for Business of the BYM recently. One thing that was suggested was to add more citations. I'm not sure if that is absolutely necessary, as we have an ample list of sources and external links, and I don't think any of the information in the article would be challenged. Perhaps the quotations need some citations, and I have put one in. What do others think? Should we nominate it for FA? Logophile 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I think we are almost there. One thing that I think could use improvement before we nominate is the stuff on conservative-evangelical-liberal Friends. The article covers this stuff on Hicksite, Gurneyite, Wilburite, etc. splits, but doesn't really give a sense as to how that stuff plays out in the 21st century. A good (perhaps one or two para) discussion about contemporary "splits" (including the fact that the splits are not necess. acrimonious) would be very useful. Also, the role of various national "revivals" in leading to a split between "regular" Friends and more evangelical/bible-centered/preacher-paying groups would be helpful. This is something that I think most people (inc. myself!) are not very clear on. Sources would be v. useful. Once this is done IMO we should go for FA, and I will definitely help out in fixing any concerns the FA people have. (PS: love the new photographs of BYM and Manchester, well done!)Sdedeo 00:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with the aforementioned c-e-l stuff issue. I'd expound on the issue of division regarding sexual orientation to reflect that Friends are not immune to this situation. Artsygeek 09:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Some of the recent shuffling has caused some problems (I'm working on them now), and I'd like to see us clean up the references to be done properly. I've started the process, but I'm bound to miss some. There is a comment in the references section with instuctions on how to do references. --Ahc 07:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall 2006-Jan 2007

Improve all "Top" or "High" importance articles to be of "Start" class or better

The current list of articles in order by quality is articles in order by quality is here. If you scroll down the page you will find the articles that are stub quality. There is currently 5 4 3 2 1 article rated as Top or High importance that is not at least of start quality.

When you remove the stub tag and update the rating functions on the talk page, please update this listing.

This project has been completed!