Wikipedia:WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains
CategoryWikiProject New Hampshire Mountains
Wikimedia CommonsCommons:Category:New Hampshire Mountains New Hampshire Mountains
Parent
project(s)		Mountains
Project banner templateWikiProject 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!

Goals
  • To improve Wikipedia's coverage of the mountains of New Hampshire.
  • To create a high-quality article for every significant mountain and related feature (pass, ravine, etc.) in the state
  • To establish guidelines for New Hampshire mountain - related articles.
Scope
  • This project covers all mountains and their related features within the state of New Hampshire.

Members[edit]

Active participants[edit]

  1. Ken Gallager (talk · contribs)
  2. Wwoods (talk · contribs)
  3. Yamaka122 (talk · contribs)

Open Tasks[edit]

  • Create a high-quality, encyclopedic article for every 4,000 footer, not just stubs.
  • Establish quality articles for each major range in the area.
  • Add images to every article; it's a stunning area, and lots of people have very good pictures.
  • Expand the category below to include features other than mountains, perhaps through sub-categories.
  • Put the Template:NE 4k ft (New England 4,000 footers) box at the bottom of every appropriate page.
  • Add mountain or mountain pass infoboxes to every NH mountain page.
  • Recruit more editors!

FACs[edit]

Peer Reviews[edit]

Requested Articles[edit]

Requested Images[edit]

Cleanup and Expansion Requests[edit]

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)[reply]

Big Ups[edit]

  • Big Ups to Wwoods for finishing off the 4k's. Thanks! -- Sturgeonman 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Templates[edit]

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that should go at the top of the talk page of every New Hampshire mountain or related feature, but this has since been replaced by the general United States one.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:

WikiProject iconUnited States: New Hampshire / New Hampshire Mountains NA‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
NAThis article has been rated as NA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject New Hampshire Mountains.

Assessment instructions[edit]

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:

{{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|NH=yes|NH-importance=|NHMTN=yes|NHMTN-importance=}}

The following values may be used for importance:

WikiProject article quality grading scheme
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.

  1. It is:
    1. well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;
    2. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
    3. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
    4. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
    5. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process; and
    6. compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
  2. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
    1. a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
    2. appropriate structure: a substantial but not overwhelming system of hierarchical section headings; and
    3. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
  3. Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Images follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate.
 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:
  1. Prose. It features professional standards of writing.
  2. Lead. It has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  3. Comprehensiveness.
  4. Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
  5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages.
  6. Stability. It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process.
 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:
  1. Well-written:
    1. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    2. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    1. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    2. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);
    3. it contains no original research; and
    4. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    1. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
    2. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    1. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    2. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 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
  1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional.
  2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
  3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
  4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously.
  5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams, an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
  6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. The article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
 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:
  • A useful picture or graphic
  • Multiple links that help explain or illustrate the topic
  • A subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • Multiple subheadings that indicate material that could be added to complete the article
 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

Statistics[edit]

New Hampshire Mountains articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
GA 2 1 1 4
B 2 1 2 3 1 9
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 = 897 Ω = 5.31
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_New_Hampshire_Mountains&oldid=1043525315"