Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Assessment
Mountain articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
![]() |
4 | 5 | 17 | 9 | 35 | ||
![]() |
1 | 1 | 2 | ||||
![]() |
11 | 9 | 49 | 57 | 126 | ||
B | 34 | 24 | 75 | 98 | 32 | 263 | |
C | 61 | 66 | 243 | 466 | 46 | 882 | |
Start | 76 | 138 | 1,008 | 6,593 | 87 | 7,902 | |
Stub | 20 | 84 | 849 | 20,165 | 62 | 21,180 | |
List | 4 | 12 | 159 | 316 | 34 | 19 | 544 |
Category | 3,023 | 3,023 | |||||
Disambig | 2 | 162 | 164 | ||||
File | 167 | 167 | |||||
Portal | 3 | 3 | |||||
Project | 20 | 20 | |||||
Template | 9 | 193 | 202 | ||||
NA | 36 | 2,505 | 370 | 2,911 | |||
Other | 1 | 23 | 24 | ||||
Assessed | 210 | 338 | 2,446 | 30,213 | 3,995 | 246 | 37,448 |
Unassessed | 14 | 14 | |||||
Total | 210 | 338 | 2,446 | 30,213 | 3,995 | 260 | 37,462 |
WikiWork factors (?) | ω = 171,159 | Ω = 5.63 |
Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Mountains. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about mountains. 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 Mountains}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Mountain articles by quality and Category:Mountain articles by importance.
Frequently asked questions[edit]
- 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 Mountains 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.
Instructions[edit]
An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Mountains}} or {{Mountain}} project banner on its talk page:
{{WikiProject Mountains
|class=
|importance=
|needs-photo=
|needs-infobox=
}}
The following values may be used for the class parameter. The value is not case-sensitive so for example, Start or start can be used.
- FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class Mountain articles)
- A (adds articles to Category:A-Class Mountain articles)
- GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class Mountain articles)
- B (adds articles to Category:B-Class Mountain articles)
- C (adds articles to Category:C-Class Mountain articles)
- Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class Mountain articles)
- Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class Mountain articles)
- List (adds articles to Category:List-Class Mountain articles)
- Disambig or Dab (adds articles to Category:Disambig-Class Mountain articles)
- Category (adds articles to Category:Category-Class Mountain articles)
- NA (for pages, such as templates, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:NA-Class Mountain articles)
Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Mountain articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.
Quality scale[edit]
Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
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. | Level Mountain |
![]() |
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. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) |
![]() |
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. | Mount Vesuvius |
![]() |
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. | Ben Nevis |
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. | Mount Everest |
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. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
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. | Mount Logan |
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. | Mount K2 |
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 literary movements |
Importance scale[edit]
An article's importance assessment is shown by the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Mountains}} project banner on its talk page:
- {{WikiProject Mountains| ... | importance=??? | ...}}
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
Status | Category | Meaning of Status |
---|---|---|
Top | Category:Top-importance Mountain articles | This article is of the utmost importance to this project. Globally important mountains such as the highest peaks of major ranges, or generally high or prominent in their continent (so all of the Seven Summits or Seven Second Summits) or otherwise internationally notable or renowned peaks for climbing, cultural or historic reasons. Major ranges of the world (sub ranges only included when particularly noteworthy and usually only if parent is not included). Other core mountain topics. |
High | Category:High-importance Mountain articles | This article is fairly important to this project. Mountains which are the high points of lesser ranges; additional major summits of major ranges or geographic areas; country high points (not listed as Top importance but that are proper mountains (roughly at least 1000m high, 300m prominence)); other peaks notable for climbing, cultural or historic reasons for a more specialized or regional audience. Significant mountain ranges, sub ranges of major world ranges. |
Mid | Category:Mid-importance Mountain articles | This article is relatively important to this project. Significant peaks in mountain ranges generally fall into this class, as do well known minor peaks, and high points of countries which are not proper mountains. Other topics likely to be of some important to specialist readers. |
Low | Category:Low-importance Mountain articles | The mountain/peak is typically not well known even among mountaineers and is not a significant summit within its mountain range (if contained in such). Other topics likely to be of limited interest even to specialist readers. |
NA | Category:NA-importance Mountain articles | This article has no importance (as it pertains to article improvement) and is typically used for categories and disambiguation pages. |
None | None | This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed. |
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 mountains.
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 several audiences — but which are of high notability to particular, material audiences — should still be highly rated.
Requesting an assessment[edit]
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.
- Simcoe Mountains
- Tibesti Mountains
- Appalachian Mountains
- Mount Oglethorpe
- Hightower Bald
- Springer Mountain
- Taburno Camposauro
- Ben Lomond Tasmania
- Mont Buet - Wrote a full entry on Mont Buet, focusing on the history of the first ascents and scientific expeditions. There are a few mistakes on the French page which need to be corrected (such as the date of the first ascent, the altitude etc.). Hist Facts (talk) 13:13, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Assessment log[edit]
Mountain articles: Index · Statistics · 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.
May 29, 2024[edit]
Reassessed[edit]
- Dallmeyer Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- El Piveto Mountain (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
- Hübl Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Laussedat Heights (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Dedo (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Fourcade (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Hoegh (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Inverleith (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Theodore (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Tsotsorkov (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Pulfrich Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Scheimpflug Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Spigot Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Stolze Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- The Downfall (mountain) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Roberts Mountain (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Removed[edit]
- Filer Hill (talk) removed.
- Hawk Hill (New York) (talk) removed.
May 28, 2024[edit]
Reassessed[edit]
- Col de Santo Stefano (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
- Harris Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Jacques Peaks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Vercors Massif (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from B-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Kulmak (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Morris Heights (East Antarctica) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Category:Mountains of Gipuzkoa (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Nagelfluhkette (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Category:Ski mountaineering at the 2020 Winter Youth Olympics (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
May 27, 2024[edit]
Reassessed[edit]
- Centipede Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Draka Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Kickelhahn (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Zeppelin (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Nove Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Category:Climbing and mountaineering films (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Pine Mountain (San Bernardino County, California) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Category:Works about climbing and mountaineering (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
Removed[edit]
- Category:Mountaineering films (talk) removed.
- Category:Works about mountaineering (talk) removed.
May 26, 2024[edit]
Renamed[edit]
- Chattogram Hill Tracts renamed to Chittagong Hill Tracts.
Reassessed[edit]
- Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from C-Class to GA-Class. (rev · t)
- Col de Teghime (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Chittagong Hill Tracts (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Category:Climbing and mountaineering film directors (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Condor Peak (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Kickelhahn (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
Removed[edit]
- Category:Mountaineering film directors (talk) removed.
May 25, 2024[edit]
Renamed[edit]
- Chittagong Hill Tracts renamed to Chattogram Hill Tracts.
Reassessed[edit]
- Batteriekopf (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
- Lale Buttress (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Zabernovo Bastion (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Chattogram Hill Tracts (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as C-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Monrovia Peak (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
May 24, 2024[edit]
Reassessed[edit]
- Aureole Hills (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Bendida Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Ivory Pinnacles (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Lobosh Buttress (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mikov Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Poynter Hill (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Seydol Crag (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- South Arapaho Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
- Survakari Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Mount Lawlor (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
May 23, 2024[edit]
Renamed[edit]
- Mount Florence (Yosemite) renamed to Mount Florence.
Reassessed[edit]
- Batkun Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Bekker Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Darzalas Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Falak Sar (Swat) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
- Glazne Buttress (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Gusla Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Ivats Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Kavlak Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Konstantin Buttress (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Marash Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Elliott (Antarctica) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Odesos Buttress (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Paglia Orba (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
- Papiya Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Rice Bastion (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Sentinel Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Storgozia Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Stoykite Buttress (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Tillberg Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Vedrare Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
- Zgorigrad Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
Assessed[edit]
- Fairy Meadows National Park (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
- Josephine Peak (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Montchauvet (mountain) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
- Mount Florence (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)