This
WikiProject is defunct. Consider looking for related projects such as WikiProject Mountains for help or ask at the Teahouse. If you feel this project may be worth reviving,
please discuss with related projects first. Feel free to change this tag if the parameters were changed in error. (Tag placed February 2010)
|
Category | WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains |
---|---|
Wikimedia Commons | New Hampshire Mountains |
Parent project(s) | Mountains |
Project banner template | WikiProject United States |
Welcome to the New Hampshire Mountains WikiProject!
The mountains of New Hampshire are an important and popular topic, but unfortunately lack adequate coverage. Help us make Wikipedia the ultimate source for information about New Hampshire's mountains!
Waterville Valley Resort was recently proposed for deletion, presumably because it is only a few sentences long. If there are any skiers out there who could expand the article to establish the area's notability, many of us would appreciate it.-- Ken Gallager ( talk) 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
This project once had its own template that should go at the top of the talk page of every New Hampshire mountain or related feature, but this has since been replaced by the general United States one. It should be used like this:
{{
WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|NH=|NH-importance=|NHMTN=|NHMTN-importance=}}
It will come out looking like this:
United States: New Hampshire / New Hampshire Mountains NA‑class | |||||||||||||
|
Basically since we have so few members, we really can't formulate a review process for everything. A general rule for this project is that if it works for other projects, then it works for us.
An article's assessment is generated from the class parameter in the {{ WikiProject United States}} project banner on its talk page that has its NHMTN parameter set to yes; its syntax looks somewhat like this:
The following values may be used for importance:
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.
|
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. under discussion | N/A |
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:
|
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. | N/A |
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. | N/A |
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:
|
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. | Appalachian Trail |
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 Washington (New Hampshire) |
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. | White Mountain National Forest |
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. | Presidential Range |
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 Willey |
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 mountains of New Hampshire |
Project | All WikiProject-related pages fall under this class. | Project pages are intended to aid editors in article development. | Develop these pages into collaborative resources that are useful for improving articles within the project. | Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains |
New Hampshire Mountains articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
GA | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | ||
B | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8 | ||
C | 1 | 1 | 7 | 2 | 11 | ||
Start | 1 | 5 | 31 | 15 | 52 | ||
Stub | 3 | 49 | 41 | 93 | |||
List | 1 | 1 | |||||
Category | 20 | 20 | |||||
File | 1 | 1 | |||||
Project | 4 | 4 | |||||
Redirect | 1 | 1 | |||||
Assessed | 6 | 12 | 89 | 63 | 25 | 1 | 196 |
Total | 6 | 12 | 89 | 63 | 25 | 1 | 196 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 896 | Ω = 5.30 |