Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Assessment

Welcome to the assessment department of the Numismatic WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's money related articles. 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 Numismatics project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Numismatic articles by quality and Category:Numismatic articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

FAQ

 * 1. How do I add an article to the WikiProject? : Just add WikiProject Numismatics to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
 * 2. Someone put a WikiProject Numismatics template on an article, but it's not a numismatic related topic.  What should I do? : Because of the large number of articles we deal with, we occasionally make mistakes and add tags to articles that shouldn't have them.  If you notice one, feel free to remove the tag, and optionally leave a note on the talk page of this department (or directly with the person who tagged the article). If User:WatchlistBot did it, you can add it to the exclusion list for the project (User:WatchlistBot/Numismatics to make sure that it will not be retagged again.
 * 3. What is the purpose of the article ratings? : The objective of the rating system is twofold. First, it allows the project to monitor the quality of articles in our subject areas, and to prioritize work on these articles.  Second, the ratings will be used by the Wikipedia 1.0 project to compile a "released version" of Wikipedia that can be distributed to readers.  Please note, however, that these ratings are meant for the internal use of the project, and do not imply any official standing within Wikipedia as a whole.
 * 4. How can I get an article rated? : Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
 * 5. Who can assess articles? : Any member of the Numismatics WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
 * 6. Why didn't the reviewer leave any comments? : Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning.
 * 8. 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.
 * 9. Aren't the ratings subjective? : Yes, they are (see, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale), 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!
 * 10. How can I keep track of changes in article ratings? : A full log of changes over the past thirty days is available here. If you are just looking for an overview, however, the monthly statistics may be more accessible.
 * 11. What if I have a question not listed here? : If your question concerns the article assessment process specifically, please refer to the discussion page; for any other issues, you can go to the main project discussion page.

Importance scale
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 collectors.

Note that the rating need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; equally well-known topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which this is the case. Thus, the rating given to topics which may seem obscure to an editor from one country—but which are well-known in another—should correspond to the higher level of notability in the second country.

Requests for assessment
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.


 * I'd like to request assessment and review of Coin Collecting . I've finished a major copy edit of this piece and would like further guidance/opinion on what's required to bring this article to GA status. Thanks. --Whoosit (talk) 23:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request re-assessment of the B-Class quality rating for Royal_Canadian_Mint_numismatic_coins_(20th_century) and Royal_Canadian_Mint_numismatic_coins_(2000s).  I believe both are over-graded. There is a great deal of work done already on these pieces, but they don't yet merit B class. --Whoosit (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate a rating for the article Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Austria) . A set of wikipedians have been working in the article series Euro gold and silver commemorative coins to cover all euro collectors coins, and the Austrian article is one of the almost completed (we also have in very good shape Belgium, Finland and Ireland). Miguel.mateo (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Austria's is already at B, I suggest trying to take it thru the GA process.  Joe   I  02:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I will not pass, since the images are used under the fair use rationale and the policy says that no non-fair iamges can be used for GA. I tried to push it for FL (like Belgium) but it did not pass because of that.  Since we are never going to receive the license to freely use those images, I simply gave up. Miguel.mateo (talk) 04:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The GA criteria states that fair use rationale must be provided. I only looked thru the first section, but all the images did have such rationale, under the summary heading.  The exact same rationale used in Euro gold and silver commemorative coins (Belgium) images.  As long as all images have such, it will not play a role in GA or FA consideration.   Joe   I  06:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Incorrect: check the archives of the discussion to promote it to feature list, it's in the talk page of the article, aparently there is a section of one policy that is supposed to meassure the number of non-free images within an article. You do not need to convince me, I do wnat to promote all those articles (in a very good shape we have Austria, Belgium, Finland, Greece, Malta, Slovenia, Cyprus and Slovakia)  You will find in the archived discussion for Austria the reasons why it was not promoted.  The whole copy/edit is done, ignore that, focus in the images argument.  Perhaps you can help to convince a few administrators to change the policy, since it does not make sense for articles like this one.  Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Bolivian peso has been expanded considerably beyond stub class and should be reassessed. Sivasova (talk) 11:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's not a stub anylonger, tho significant improvements need to be made, use of inline refs and wikilinks most notably.  Joe   I  02:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Request to assess Identifying marks on euro coins . Also, some feedback would be appreciated and helpful! --Theeuro (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, start/mid.  Joe   I  09:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please review the rating of Odessa Numismatics Museum . The article has been changed.Vlad Fedchenko 22:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I left it a "b". The next logical choice would be "GA" which you must pass the GA process.  Joe   I  05:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that the current rating of Bracteate as Mid importance is doubtful, I believe this subject should be High since many people are devoted to the study of these ancient coins and they play an important role in the history of numismatics. Nixdorf 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Importance ranking justified. Talk:Bracteate   Jo  e  I  10:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * German mark has not yet been rated. Alr 23:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, no need to retract. :)  Jo  e  I  07:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Afghan afghani IMHO, should not be A-class.
 * Start class I would say. --Chochopk 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed to a B class.  Jo  e  I  14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Qatari riyal IMHO, should not be A-class.
 * Start class I would say. --Chochopk 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed to start class.  Jo  e  I  14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * United States dollar should be Top-importance
 * Pound sterling and euro are. --Chochopk 08:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to top importance.  Jo  e  I  14:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Renminbi, Hong Kong dollar, Japanese yen
 * I mark them as B, but some people might consider them GA. I can't decide. -- Chochopk 02:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * GA is reserved for articles which are officially Good articles. I think quality between B and GA can be the same, although B can also be not quite there yet. Ingrid 01:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Euro coins hasn't been rated yet. - Рэд  хот  12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, "B High" :)   Jo  e  I  12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Euro banknotes hasn't been rated yet. - Рэд  хот  12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * and Done, "B High" :)   Jo  e  I  12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Macedonian denar needs assessment . Alr 19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Done :)  Jo  e  I  08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a B-class. I changed it to start. --Chochopk 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And mid importance. --Chochopk 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Back to high import, it's a circulatin currenciy, anyone from Macedania would think it important. I think all cirrculating currencies should atleast be high.   Jo  e  I  06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Irish pound hasn't been rated yet . - Рэд  хот  20:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * And Done :) 08:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong banknotes needs assessment . Alr 00:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done  Jo  e  I  09:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Gold dollar new article. Canderson7 (talk) 18:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, Nice, Add refs it'll be close to GA.  Jo  e  I  19:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Canderson7 (talk) 22:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Manx pound is still listed as a stub, yet I think it is way past that point. Would some kind project person please review it?  TIA.  --Eliyahu S Talk 03:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done :)   Jo  e  I  06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for removing the money-stub,  Jo e I , but I was hoping to get a more definitive assessment, like did we make it B class yet? Thanks.  --Eliyahu S Talk 07:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks,  Jo e I , now I see our B! :-) --Eliyahu S Talk 07:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ukrainian hryvnia has not been rated. —dima/s-ko/ 00:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed both Ukrainian hryvnia and Belarusian ruble to B-high. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks! —dima/s-ko/ 00:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Request to reassess every article under WikiProject Numismatics, such as ruble and dinar, plus dirham and fils (currency). --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 04:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is that?  Jo  e  I  10:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ?? Ultimately, all numismatic article should be assess, right? I'm just requesting because I can't do that now. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 10:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, asking for assesment, I thought you meant reassesment, like something went terribly wrong the first time. :) I'll be able to start later.   Jo  e  I  10:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean individual article like Russian ruble, Belarusian ruble. Just the general ones. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 12:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Although there is some inconsistancies, all but Thaler and Rupee are disambig pages.   Jo  e  I  05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm could be worth checking out all 19 articles in Category:GA-Class numismatic articles - just a thought. Cheers, Paxse 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Historical exchange rates of Argentine currency has no rating yet. --Alpertron 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Got it.  Jo  e  I  14:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if the start status for the Canadian currency tactile feature is correct or not. The article is very short, granted, but I don't think it's incomplete.  Some articles just are short by nature.    For disclosure purposes, I should mention that I created the article.Martin-C 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how short it is and the lack of references combined will keep this as a start.  Jo  e  I  22:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just browsing GA cats and Guinea (British coin) is rated as GA - but I don't see the icon or a link to the GA assessment. Paxse 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Went thru Category:GA-Class numismatic articles. Almost all were not GA.  Joe   I  08:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Revaluation of 1974 aluminum cent . Does not seem to be Start Class quality.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. As requested, I've reviewed the article. I promoted it from Start class on the quality scale to B class.  A collaborative effort could raise this to A. I see this as a potential gem of an article, limited by lack of available reference material/sources. --Whoosit (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * List of people on United States banknotes has been promoted to a Featured List. Could this please be reflected in the assessment of the list? Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request an importance reassessment for Perth Mint, Royal Canadian Mint and all articles on extant national bullion mints currently rated as low importance. IMO the institutions that produce numismatic coins are central to the discussion of numismatics; and the low quality of Perth Mint would be easy to point to as evidence that this WikiProject was ineffective. Neon  Merlin  23:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd like to request an assessment of the Half Sovereign article. I have made significant edits and believe it is above the quality of a stub article . I appreciate any feedback. I work for a numismatist and would like to continue editing the article, although I won't have time in the near future. Platonist Rainbow (talk) 01:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Log
The full log of assessment changes for the past thirty days is available here. Unfortunately, due to its extreme size, it cannot be transcluded directly.