Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British and Irish hills/Assessment

More detail on assessments

Presume all chat on assessment should now be here?

Mr Hamster, I see the process has started. I'm OK with "stub" and "start"- they need everything doing to them- but is there a mechanism to put more detail on the "B"s. If the assessor could say on the talk page of the article whether they thought there were missing sections, problems with style, poor pictures whatever, then it would be easier to make improvements. For instance Helvellyn and Scafell Pike are Bs- what in particular would you see as the way forward.

I know there is a key hill page, but it would be quicker (and from my Wainwright-centric viewpoint, more use) if the comment was sat on the talk page. Cheers Bobble Hat 20:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a suitable place, sorry for the late reply. Some templates for other wikiprojects allow the addition of comments on a sub-page which are then transcluded into the banner (I believe). However I saw this as clogging up the banner, talk page, subpage etc with more complication (its complicated enough already!) so decided not to implement it. I suppose the best option is, as you suggest, to encourage the reviewer to leave comments just on the normal talk page, something I haven't been doing!

In terms of B class article it is difficult to know the standard as the GA process is rather hit and miss itself. For example Cross Fell is a GA despite the fact it probably wouldn't get promoted if it was nominated today, while Ben Nevis is a GA and is probably A-class and very close to FA standard if it were to have a peer review and some copyediting. As you mentioned Helvellyn and Scafell Pike I would say that they are both among the better B-class articles. Scafell pike needs to have the lead summarise the article better and maybe therefore have a history section and naming section so stuff isn't solely mentioned in the lead. A reviewer would probably also ask for more references. Helvellyn would be the similar in that the lead is almost non-existent. A separate and expanded geology section would be nice as would an ascent routes section as well as more references. For many of the Wainwright articles, in general, they could benefit from being split into suitable sections once they have enough text.

I hope this helps explain the matter, although I'm no expert at assessing articles! However if there are any articles you want to get to GA standard I would be glad to take a look at them prior to nomination. - Suicidalhamster 16:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Requiring Assessment/ Reassessment

Lake District: All Northern Fells stubs/near-stubs now expanded. Also added some more to Skiddaw and Blencathra. Bobble Hat 21:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lake District: All North Western Fells stubs/near-stubs now expanded. Also added some text to a few of the others. Bobble Hat 21:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantock Hills - could someone take a look to see if this article has progressed beyond "start" & make any suggestions about what else should be done before putting it up for GA?— Rod ^talk 13:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]