Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Assessment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
HomeParticipantsAssessmentStyle guideTemplatesResource libraryRecognized content
WikiProject Mining
General
Departments and Task list
Resources

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 6 16 65 158 43 288
C 10 77 196 549 101 933
Start 12 106 399 1,633 211 2,361
Stub 3 118 1,694 143 1,958
List 2 15 45 95 8 3 168
Category 2,363 2,363
Disambig 6 6
Portal 1 1
Project 18 18
Template 64 64
NA 3 7 45 118 173
Other 23 23
Assessed 31 229 844 4,200 2,601 501 8,406
Total 31 229 844 4,200 2,601 501 8,406
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 28,231 Ω = 5.05
For a more general overview of assessment at Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Assessment.


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

[edit]

An 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

[edit]

The 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

[edit]
WikiProject content 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. 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:
  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; 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:
  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. 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
  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 does not need to be of the standard of featured articles. 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. 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:
  • 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. 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

[edit]

Importance (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

[edit]

The 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.)
  • National-level mineral industry overviews, where mining is of at least some significant import to the country/territory's economy (e.g. Mineral industry of Mozambique)
  • articles with a national/regional focus (e.g. Coal mining in Brazil)
  • major individual mineral deposits (e.g. Mesabi Range)
  • major individual mines
    • factors include: length of operation (relative to its type of mine), engineering or production records, level of designated historical listing, impact on development of technology, place in popular culture, etc.
  • stone and stone quarries of national or international usage and importance
  • major mining companies
    • factors include: production, revenue (relative to other companies of the time), and history (e.g. a 50+ year old company much more likely to be "mid" than a 15 year old one)
  • more specialized technology, processes, and techniques (e.g. carbide lamp, mantrip)
  • individuals who have had a profound impact on mining as a field (mostly select mining engineers or geologists)
  • key mining accidents (those that led to major enduring reforms or further historical events)
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.)
  • National-level overview articles for countries and territories where mining activity is negligible or little importance to the local economy (e.g. Mineral industry of Seychelles)
  • smaller mineral deposits
  • mines that do not meet the criteria for mid-class, including but not limited to:
    • defunct short-lived mines and mining districts, and recently-opened (~15 years old or less) or proposed mines.
    • mines of primarily local significance (including most collieries where the coal is or was for local usage, rather than trade or export)
  • stone and stone quarries of primarily local usage and significance
  • most mining communities (especially where there is a separate article for the relevant mine) and ghost towns
  • most persons: individual miners, writers on mining, businesspeople in mining, etc.
    • Note: only tag those miners and businesspeople who are notable for their role in mining (e.g. a rugby player who happened to be a miner is outside the scope of the project)
  • specialized topics of local significance (e.g. Toll tin)
  • most mining labor disputes (as WikiProject Organized Labour covers these in more depth)
NA This page does not need importance assessment
  • non-articles (e.g. templates, categories, project pages)
??? 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.


November 21, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

November 20, 2024

[edit]

Reassessed

[edit]
  • Metal (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Musk family (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from NA-Class to C-Class. (rev · t) Importance rating changed from NA-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Resolute Mining (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • W. R. Wilson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

[edit]

November 19, 2024

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]

November 18, 2024

[edit]

Renamed

[edit]

Assessed

[edit]

Removed

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mining/Assessment&oldid=1156119785"