Wikipedia:WikiProject Mining/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Home Participants Assessment Style guide Templates Resource library Recognized content



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 article quality grading scheme

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.

September 26, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Granduc Mine (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class (rev · t).

September 25, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 24, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 23, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

September 22, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 16, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

September 14, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Jualin Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Low-Class (rev · t).

September 5, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 3, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

September 1, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Landsale (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 31, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Mount Polley (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Mid-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

  • Red Lake Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 29, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 28, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 26, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Falun Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as High-Class (rev · t).

August 22, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

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

August 21, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

August 20, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 19, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 17, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 16, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 15, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Mount Polley (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

August 14, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 13, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 12, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 11, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 10, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 9, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

Removed[edit]

August 8, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 7, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

August 5, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Gold (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class (rev · t).

August 2, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Ivanhoe Mines (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

August 1, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 31, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 30, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 27, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

July 26, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 25, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 24, 2014[edit]

Removed[edit]

  • Xstrata (talk) removed. Quality rating was Start-Class (rev · t). Importance rating was Mid-Class (rev · t).

July 23, 2014[edit]

Reassessed[edit]

  • Beaulieu Mine (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class (rev · t).

Assessed[edit]

July 22, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 21, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

  • Forminière (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class (rev · t). Importance assessed as Unknown-Class (rev · t).

July 20, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 19, 2014[edit]

Assessed[edit]

July 17, 2014[edit]

Renamed[edit]

Assessed[edit]