Wikipedia:WikiProject Geology/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This table is automatically updated by Oleg Alexandrov's WP 1.0 bot. See the log for the latest changes.
watch

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

Contents

[edit] Frequently asked questions

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 Geology WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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.

[edit] Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Geology}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Geology
|class= 
|importance= 
|attention= 
|needs-infobox= 
|peer-review= 
|old-peer-review= 
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Geology articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

[edit] Quality scale

WikiProject article quality grading scheme

[edit] Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical 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 students of the Geology.

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.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High {{High-Class}} This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

[edit] Importance assessment

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

{{WikiProject Geology| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
Top
High
Mid
Low
???

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

[edit] Requesting an assessment

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. Geology of Scotland. Upgrade recently completed. A re-assessment would be helpful, but what I'd really like is something closer to a peer review. I am by no means a professional geologist and I may have been occasionally unconformable, if you get my drift. Any assistance gratefully received. Ben MacDui (Talk) 15:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. Exner equation Updated and expanded, and I now believe that it is more than a stub. Awickert (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
    I removed the stub tag, but would still like an assessment whenever someone has a chance - thanks! Awickert (talk) 04:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  3. Sioux Quartzite One of the more initially-complete articles I have made - would like an assessment to see where others think it stands, how to improve it. Awickert (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  4. Sturzstrom Expanded upon the original article and submitted it to wikiProject geology. Would like an assessment on what could be improved.G310cody (talk) 04:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    Assessed, see article talk page. Awickert (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Earthscope Part of a class (group) project. Finished the majority of it, small edits will continue. Needs a new assessment! --pokasd (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
    Assessed, see article talk page. Awickert (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Marshall Kay. Woefully incomplete and not yet rated article; help would be appreciated. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  7. Poebrotherium: added quite a bit of information from the "stub" status, including references and illustrations. More work remains to be done, but I think it is probably more than stub-class at this time. Perhaps a reassessment would be useful? PageRob (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. HMRG Deep. Sort-of-recently created, unassessed, and I'd like to know where the article should go from here. Any comments/criticism also appreciated. Thanks! Hardtofindaname 08:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  9. Cross-cutting relationships. Just finished expanding it, I think it can be upgraded from a stub now. Assessment appreciated! chazparky (talk) 12:18, 02 November 2009 (UTC)
  10. Fusakichi Omori - Began new article from only the three sentences in wikipedia.jp version. Was DYK 17 May 2011. Looking forward to your assessment as time permits. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  11. Jacobsville Sandstone - I've put a lot of work into this article, and what an outside opinion, including suggestions for improvement. Thanks in advance. Chris857 (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
  12. Bukit Batu LawiThis was a stub when I found it but I added quite a lot Shandartowers (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox request

Complete the "needs-infobox" field with the infobox template required to add an appropriate template to the talk page.

[edit] Assessment log

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.

[edit] February 10, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] February 8, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] Removed

  • Williamsonia (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

[edit] February 7, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] February 6, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] February 5, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] February 4, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] February 3, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] February 2, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

  • Penikisite (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Winton Formation (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to Unknown-Class (rev · t).

[edit] Assessed

[edit] Removed

[edit] February 1, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Removed

[edit] January 31, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] January 30, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 29, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

  • Caroline Birley (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).
  • Kurkar (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

[edit] Removed

[edit] January 28, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 27, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 26, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 25, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] January 24, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 24, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 23, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 22, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 21, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] January 20, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 19, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 17, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] January 16, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 15, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] Removed

[edit] January 14, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] January 13, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 12, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

  • Mica (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class (rev · t).
  • Nicolas Steno (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class (rev · t). Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to High-Class (rev · t).
  • Winton Formation (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to Unknown-Class (rev · t).

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 10, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 9, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 8, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] Removed

  • Cretoxyrhina (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

[edit] January 7, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 6, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] January 5, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Removed

[edit] January 4, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

  • Becquerelite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Billietite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Haiweeite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Liebigite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Mundite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Parsonsite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Soddyite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Uranocircite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Vanuralite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Weeksite (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

[edit] January 3, 2012

[edit] Renamed

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] January 2, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Removed

  • Aviculopecten (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Carbonicola (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Cardiola (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Daonella (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Gervillaria (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Gryphaea arcuata (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Hippurites (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Inoceramus (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Neithea (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Oxytoma (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Platyceramus (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Potamomya (talk) removed. Quality rating was Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Solenomorpha (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Teredina (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Volviceramus (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Whiteavesia (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).
  • Wilkingia (talk) removed. Quality rating was Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Unknown-Class (rev · t).

[edit] January 1, 2012

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] December 31, 2011

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] December 30, 2011

[edit] Reassessed

[edit] Assessed

[edit] Worklist

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

This page was once used by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. It is preserved because of the information in its edit history. This page should not be edited or deleted. Wikiproject article lists can be generated using the WP 1.0 web tool.

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages