Home | Participants | Assessment | Style guide | Templates | Resource library | Recognized content |
WikiProject Mining |
---|
Portals Earth Sciences |
Mining articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 2 | 5 | 2 | 9 | |||
GA | 1 | 7 | 9 | 24 | 41 | ||
B | 4 | 16 | 64 | 158 | 44 | 286 | |
C | 11 | 77 | 195 | 545 | 99 | 927 | |
Start | 11 | 82 | 396 | 1,620 | 206 | 2,315 | |
Stub | 1 | 27 | 123 | 1,703 | 143 | 1,997 | |
List | 2 | 15 | 45 | 93 | 8 | 3 | 166 |
Category | 1,946 | 1,946 | |||||
Disambig | 6 | 6 | |||||
Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
Project | 18 | 18 | |||||
Template | 61 | 61 | |||||
NA | 3 | 6 | 40 | 119 | 168 | ||
Other | 28 | 28 | |||||
Assessed | 30 | 229 | 843 | 4,185 | 2,187 | 495 | 7,969 |
Total | 30 | 229 | 843 | 4,185 | 2,187 | 495 | 7,969 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 28,205 | Ω = 5.06 |
Welcome to the Assessment Department of the Mining WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles related to Mining. While much of the work is done in conjunction with the Version 1.0 Editorial Team program, the article ratings are also used within the project itself to aid in recognizing excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of additional work.
The ratings are set through parameters in the {{WikiProject Mining}} project banner. This causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Mining articles by quality and Mining articles by importance, which serves as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.
Instructions
editAn article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Mining}} banner on it's talk page. To add an article to the list, simply add the template to the talk page of the article with the following parameters:
{{WikiProject Mining
|class=
|importance=
}}
Class
editThe following system is used by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team for assessing how close we are to a distribution-quality article on a particular topic. The system is based on a letter scheme which reflects how complete the article is, though the content and language quality are also factors.
The quality assessments are mainly performed by members of WikiProject Mining, who tag talk pages of mining related articles. These tags are then collected by a bot, which then generates a series of pages, such as a table, log and statistics.
Once an article reaches the A-Class, it is considered "complete", although obviously edits will continue to be made. Two levels, GA and FA, are not assessments that can be assigned simply by a project member. These refer to external judgments of article quality made at WP:GA and WP:FA. If these tags are desired, and the article meets the criteria (for GA or FA), it must be nominated (for GA or FA) and await comments.
It is vital that people not take these assessments personally. It is understood that we all have different priorities and different opinions about what makes a perfect article. If you contribute a lot of content to an article you may request an independent assessment.
The following values may be used for Class assessments:
- FA - Featured article
- FL - Featured list
- A - A class article
- GA - Good article
- B - B class article
- C - C class article
- Start - Start class article
- Stub - Stub article
- NA - not applicable
If blank, this will default as Unassessed and will be listed in Category:Unassessed Mining articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below. (also found at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment)
Other potential values.
- List - List
- Dab - Disambiguation page
- Template - Template description
- Cat - Category description
Quality scale
editClass | 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.
|
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. | California Gold Rush (as of March 2013) |
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:
|
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:
|
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. | Klondike Gold Rush (as of March 2013) |
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
|
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. | Coal mining (as of March 2013) |
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. | Copper mining in Arizona (as of March 2013) |
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:
|
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. | Big Muskie (as of March 2013) |
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. | Damp (mining) (as of March 2013) |
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 gold mines in Australia |
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:Mining engineers |
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 scale
editImportance (i.e. Priority) must be regarded as a relative term. If importance values are applied within this project, these only reflect the perceived importance to this project, i.e. what priority should participants in this project address the articles. An article judged to be "Top-Class" in one context may be only "Mid-Class" in another.
The criteria used for rating an article's importance are not meant to be an absolute 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 those in the mining or geology fields, and not otherwise highly linked to by other articles.
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.
If blank, this will default as Unknown ("???") priority.
Scale
editThe importance within Mining articles is based on this scale. The following values may be used for Importance assessments:
Rating | General properties | General examples |
---|---|---|
Top | The article is about one of the core topics of Mining. (This article is of the utmost importance to the project, as it forms the basis of all information.) |
|
High | The article is about the most well-known or culturally or historically significant aspects of the Mining industry. (This article is fairly important to the project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.) |
|
Mid | This article is relatively important to the project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas. (The article is about a topic within the field that may or may not be commonly known outside the Mining community.) |
|
Low | The article is about a topic that is highly specialized within the field of Mining and is not generally common knowledge outside that community or the local mining communities. (This article is of little importance (i.e. low priority) to this project, but it covers a highly specific or specialized area of knowledge, or an obscure piece of trivia.) |
|
NA | This page does not need importance assessment |
|
??? | This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be assessed. | There should be none of these; please help assess the article. |
Assessment log
edit- The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.
Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.
October 9, 2024
editReassessed
edit- Elbistan coalfield (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- History of mining in Chile (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Jordan Phosphate Mines (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Kışlaköy coal mine (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Lonshi Mine (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Meadow Branch Coalfield (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Nickel deposits of Finland (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Phosphate mining in the United States (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Polymetallic ore (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- San Rafael Rock Quarry (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Seaham Colliery (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Shotton Surface Mine (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Stancombe Quarry (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Tabataud Quarry (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Whitburn Colliery (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
October 8, 2024
editReassessed
edit- George Nedham (miner) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
edit- Great Cobar mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
October 7, 2024
editRenamed
edit- Warwickshire Coalfield renamed to Warwickshire coalfield.
Reassessed
edit- George Nedham (miner) (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Ronchamp coal mines (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed
edit- Warwickshire coalfield (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
October 5, 2024
editAssessed
edit- Didipio mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
October 4, 2024
editRemoved
edit- Draft:Gem Hunters Down Under (talk) removed.
October 3, 2024
editRenamed
edit- Candente Copper renamed to Alta Copper.
Reassessed
edit- Iron ore in Australia (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Jordans Mine (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Lake Maitland mine (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Moonee Colliery (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Elliot mine (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)