WikiProject Mining
General Main page (talk) Participants Project category Article alerts
Departments and Task list To-do list Clean-up list Requested articles Assessment Peer reviews
Resources Resource library Useful templates Referencing tools
Portals Earth Sciences

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.

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= 
}}

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

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.

The importance within Mining articles is based on this scale. The following values may be used for Importance assessments:

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.

• Mogoingol Coal Mine renamed to Mogoin Gol Coal Mine.

• Artillery Peak mine (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
• Du Toit's Pan (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Unknown-Class to Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Baruun Naran Coal Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Blagodatnoye mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Goedgevonden mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Marcel Coal Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Mogoin Gol Coal Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Nkomati mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Sharyn Gol Coal Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Vele coal mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Venetia Diamond Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Bargilt Iron Ore Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Mogoingol Coal Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Tumurtolgoi Iron Ore Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Edward Hurst Davies (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
• Victoria Mine, Michigan (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)

• Bayanteeg Coal Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Zeegt Coal Mine (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Dowell, Illinois (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as List-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
• Edward Hurst Davies (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

• Category:Coal mining disasters in Wyoming (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• Category:Coal mining disasters in the United States (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Category-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
• ENAMI (Ecuador) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)

• ENAMI (talk) removed.
• Draft:Raymond Kwaku Marfo (talk) removed.

• Victoria Mine, Michigan (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

• Victoria Mine, Nevada (talk) removed.