Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Geography of Canada. We assess the quality and importance ofGeography of Canada related articles. Work is done with conjunction with theWikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, and the worklist is produced byWP 1.0 bot.
Articles are rated through template{{WikiProject Canada|geography=yes|class= |importance= }} onGeography of Canada related articletalk pages.
| Geography of Canada articles by quality and importance | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality | Importance | ||||||
| Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 21 | ||||
| 14 | 7 | 1 | 22 | ||||
| 4 | 14 | 25 | 43 | ||||
| B | 12 | 20 | 130 | 131 | 293 | ||
| C | 3 | 27 | 268 | 546 | 844 | ||
| Start | 1 | 20 | 2,115 | 5,845 | 3 | 1 | 7,985 |
| Stub | 1,008 | 10,963 | 39 | 1 | 12,011 | ||
| List | 2 | 10 | 165 | 211 | 5 | 393 | |
| Category | 1,560 | 1,560 | |||||
| Disambig | 68 | 68 | |||||
| File | 22 | 22 | |||||
| Project | 8 | 8 | |||||
| Redirect | 21 | 2,524 | 2,545 | ||||
| Template | 204 | 204 | |||||
| NA | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Assessed | 19 | 95 | 3,717 | 17,753 | 4,434 | 2 | 26,020 |
| Unassessed | 1 | 1 | |||||
| Total | 19 | 95 | 3,717 | 17,753 | 4,435 | 2 | 26,021 |
| WikiWork factors (?) | ω =116,315 | Ω = 5.49 | |||||
The following values may be used for theclass parameter:
| Class | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editing suggestions | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The article has attainedfeatured article status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured article candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured article criteria: Afeatured article exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing. In addition to meeting thepolicies 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. | Cleopatra (as of June 2018) | |
| The article has attainedfeatured list status by passing an in-depth examination by impartial reviewers fromWP:Featured list candidates. More detailed criteria The article meets thefeatured 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; further improvements to the prose quality are often possible. | List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events (as of May 2018) | |
| 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 theA-Class criteria: Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described inWikipedia: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 afeatured 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. | Battle of Nam River (as of June 2014) | |
| The article meetsall of thegood article criteria, and has been examined by one or more impartial reviewers fromWP:Good article nominations. More detailed criteria Agood 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 existingfeatured article on a similar topic may highlight areas where content is weak or missing. | Everybody Wants to Rule the World (as of October 2025) | |
| B | The article meetsall of theB-Class criteria. It is mostly complete and does not have major problems, but requires some further work to reachgood 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 theManual of Style and relatedstyle guidelines. | Psychology (as of January 2024) |
| 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 substantialcleanup. 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 solvecleanup problems. | Wing (as of June 2018) |
| 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 toreliable sources should come first; the article also needs substantial improvement in content and organisation. Improve the grammar, spelling, and writing style; decrease the use of jargon. | Gravel (as of January 2006) |
| 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. | Lineage (anthropology) (as of December 2014) |
| List | Meets the criteria of astand-alone list orset 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 literary movements |
| Label | Criteria | Reader's experience | Editor's experience | Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top {{Top-Class}} Top | A reader who is not involved in Geography of Canada will have high familiarity with the subject matter and should be able to relate to the topic easily. | Articles in this importance range are written in mostly generic terms, leaving technical terms and descriptions for more specialized pages. | Geography of Canada | |
| High {{High-Class}} High | The article covers a topic that is vital to understanding specific topics about Geography of Canada or general topics about parts of Canadian geography | Most readers will have some knowledge of at least part of the subject | Articles at this level cover particular issues related to Geography of Canada and overview articles of more detailed pages, specific terms are used to detail the topic | Atlas of Canada,Geography of British Columbia |
| Mid] {{Mid-Class}} Mid | The article covers a topic that has a strong but not vital role in the geography of Canada. | Many readers will be familiar with the topic being discussed, but a larger majority of readers may have only cursory knowledge of the overall subject | Articles at this level will cover subjects that are well known but not necessarily vital to understand Canadian geography. Due to the topics covered at this level, Mid-importance articles will generally have more technical terms used in the article text. | Banff National Park,Canadian Shield,Lakes of Alberta |
| Low {{Low-Class}} Low | The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Canadian geography, but may cover topics related to specific subtopics. | Few readers outside of Canada or that are not within the local area of the article's topic may be familiar with the subject matter. It is likely that the reader does not know anything at all about the subject before reading the article. | Articles at this range of importance will often delve into the minutiae of Canadian geography, or may be only marginally related to the province, using technical terms (and defining them) as needed. | Mount Joffre |
An article's importance assessment is generated from theimportance parameter in the{{WikiProject Canada|yt/nt/nu=yes}} project banner on its talk page:
| Top |
| High |
| Mid |
| Low |
| ??? |
The following values may be used for importance assessments:
| This page is currently inactive and is retained forhistorical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as thevillage pump. |