Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Assessment

Mountain articles by quality and importance
Quality Importance
Top High Mid Low NA ??? Total
FA 4 5 16 9 34
FL 1 1 2
GA 11 9 49 56 125
B 34 24 76 99 16 249
C 61 66 241 463 37 868
Start 76 138 1,009 6,576 78 7,877
Stub 20 84 851 20,480 51 21,486
List 4 12 159 315 34 19 543
Category 3,019 3,019
Disambig 2 163 165
File 167 167
Portal 3 3
Project 20 20
Template 9 193 202
NA 35 2,185 370 2,590
Other 1 20 21
Assessed 210 338 2,446 30,187 3,989 201 37,371
Unassessed 28 28
Total 210 338 2,446 30,187 3,989 229 37,399
WikiWork factors (?) ω = 172,770 Ω = 5.64

Welcome to the assessment department of WikiProject Mountains. This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's articles about mountains. 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 Mountains}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Mountain articles by quality and Category:Mountain articles by importance.

Frequently asked questions

How can I get my article rated?
Please list it in the section for assessment requests below.
Who can assess articles?
Any member of the Mountains WikiProject is free to add—or change—the rating of an article.
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.
Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are, 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!

If you have any other questions not listed here, please feel free to ask them on the discussion page for this department.

Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{WikiProject Mountains}} or {{Mountain}} project banner on its talk page: 

{{WikiProject Mountains
|class=
|importance=
|needs-photo=
|needs-infobox=
}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter. The value is not case-sensitive so for example, Start or start can be used.

Articles for which a valid class is not provided are listed in Category:Unassessed Mountain articles. The class should be assigned according to the quality scale below.

Quality scale

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] Level Mountain
 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. List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events
(as of May 2018)
 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. Mount Vesuvius
 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. Ben Nevis
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 Everest
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. 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:
  • 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. Mount Logan
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 K2
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 literary movements

Importance scale

An article's importance assessment is shown by the importance parameter in the {{WikiProject Mountains}} project banner on its talk page:

{{WikiProject Mountains| ... | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for importance assessments:

Status Category Meaning of Status
Top Category:Top-importance Mountain articles This article is of the utmost importance to this project. Globally important mountains such as the highest peaks of major ranges, or generally high or prominent in their continent (so all of the Seven Summits or Seven Second Summits) or otherwise internationally notable or renowned peaks for climbing, cultural or historic reasons. Major ranges of the world (sub ranges only included when particularly noteworthy and usually only if parent is not included). Other core mountain topics.
High Category:High-importance Mountain articles This article is fairly important to this project. Mountains which are the high points of lesser ranges; additional major summits of major ranges or geographic areas; country high points (not listed as Top importance but that are proper mountains (roughly at least 1000m high, 300m prominence)); other peaks notable for climbing, cultural or historic reasons for a more specialized or regional audience. Significant mountain ranges, sub ranges of major world ranges.
Mid Category:Mid-importance Mountain articles This article is relatively important to this project. Significant peaks in mountain ranges generally fall into this class, as do well known minor peaks, and high points of countries which are not proper mountains. Other topics likely to be of some important to specialist readers.
Low Category:Low-importance Mountain articles The mountain/peak is typically not well known even among mountaineers and is not a significant summit within its mountain range (if contained in such). Other topics likely to be of limited interest even to specialist readers.
NA Category:NA-importance Mountain articles This article has no importance (as it pertains to article improvement) and is typically used for categories and disambiguation pages.
None None This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

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 students of mountains.

Note that general notability need not be from the perspective of editor demographics; generally notable topics should be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Thus, topics which may seem obscure to several audiences — but which are of high notability to particular, material audiences — should still be highly rated.

Requesting an 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.

Assessment log

Mountain articles:
Index · Statistics · Log
The logs in this section are generated automatically (on a daily basis); please don't add entries to them by hand.

Unexpected changes, such as downgrading an article, or raising it more than two assessment classes at once, are shown in bold.


April 25, 2024

Renamed

Reassessed

  • Arctowski Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Copper Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • McLaughlin Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Montalto (Apuan Alps) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Aaron (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Austin (Antarctica) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Crowell (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Gorham (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Hyatt (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Lampert (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Laudon (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Light (Antarctica) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount McElroy (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Mull (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Nash (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Owen (Antarctica) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Poster (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Rath (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Robertson (Antarctica) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Sumner (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Tenney (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Terrazas (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Tricorn (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Wood (Palmer Land) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ol Doinyo Lengai (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Start-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Rare Range (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Copper Mountain (Wyoming) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Hohwart (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Keilir (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

April 24, 2024

Reassessed

  • Anderson Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Arnoldy Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Bean Peaks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Carlson Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Eaton Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Espenschied Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Fisher Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Graser Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Henry Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Hinely Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Hutchins Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Janke Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Jorgensen Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Kinter Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lamboley Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mali me Gropa (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Moremore Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Morgan Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Morgan Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Becker (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Benkert (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Berger (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Boyer (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Cahill (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Cherry-Garrard (talk) reassessed. Importance rating changed from Low-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Dewe (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Jenkins (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Leek (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount McCann (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount McKibben (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Thornton (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Wasilewski (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Novocin Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Potter Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Shelton Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Witte Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Mount Ballard (Arizona) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Zalongo (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)

Removed

April 23, 2024

Reassessed

  • Barker Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Cheeks Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Christoph Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Crutcher Rock (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Doppler Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Fiebelman Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Fletcher Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Foltz Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Gardner Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Gaylord Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Grossenbacher Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Henkle Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Holtet Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Horner Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • House Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Isakson Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Jurassic Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Luck Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lysá hora (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Marshall Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Metzgar Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Abrams (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Boyles (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Brice (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Carrara (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Caywood (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Chandler (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Glowa (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Goodman (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Harry (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Hassage (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Hirman (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Horne (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Huffman (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Lanzerotti (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Mende (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Neuner (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Peterson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Rex (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Southern (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Suggs (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Takanosu (Kanagawa) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Stub-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Trimpi (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Neff Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • O'Neill Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Olander Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Quilty Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Schmutzler Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Schwartz Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Smith Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Staack Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Stanton Hills (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Thabana Ntlenyana (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Thomas Mountains (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Thomson Summit (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Tollefson Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Triassic Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Voight Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Weather Guesser Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Whistler Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Whitmill Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Zohn Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Dolomites (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Mid-Class. (rev · t)
  • Draft:Laura Waterman (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mali me Gropa (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Montalto (Apuan Alps) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Rainbow Mountain (Alaska) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Twin Peaks (Sequoia National Park) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

April 22, 2024

Reassessed

  • Dean Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Evans Knoll (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Hodgson Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Ichigem Range (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Inman Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Kenfield Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Koehler Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lepley Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Maish Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Meyers Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Combs (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Manthe (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Moses (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Nickens (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Ruang (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to Start-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Tuve (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Rebholz Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Shepherd Dome (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Slusher Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Teeters Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Velie Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Wold Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Fir wave (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Großer Heuberg (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

April 21, 2024

Reassessed

  • Avalanche Ridge (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Cache Heights (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Christoffersen Heights (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Intrusive Spur (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Linnerberg (Aargau) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Loweth (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Pillsbury Tower (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Prism Ridge (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Rightangle Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Snowplume Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Snyder Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Sutley Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Wright Peak (Antarctica) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Bowen Mountain (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Disambig-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Protection Mountain (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
  • Tom a' Chòinich (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)

April 20, 2024

Reassessed

  • Dickens Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Guy Peaks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Jenzig (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Landfall Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lowe Nunataks (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Borgeson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Bramhall (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Caldwell (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Dowling (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Hawthorne (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Kazukaitis (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Leech (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Lopez (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Noxon (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Simpson (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Parker Peak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Smith Peak (Antarctica) (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

April 19, 2024

Reassessed

  • Cima Rest (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to B-Class. (rev · t)
  • Jordan Nunatak (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Lorettoberg (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Unassessed-Class to C-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Bubier (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Feury (talk) reassessed. Quality rating changed from Stub-Class to NA-Class. (rev · t)

Assessed

  • Col Saint-Antoine (Corsica) (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col San Giovanni (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col Visentin (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as B-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col d'Étache (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col de Bigorno (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col de Marsolino (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col de San Colombano (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col de San Quilico (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col de Santo Stefano (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col de Teghime (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Col de la Traversette (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Coll de Banyuls (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Unassessed-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Colla di Boasi (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Colle del Melogno (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Colle di Nava (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Dalton Pass (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Stub-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Unknown-Class. (rev · t)
  • Draft:Mission Peak (Washington) (talk) assessed. Importance assessed as NA-Class. (rev · t)
  • Mount Pitt (talk) assessed. Quality assessed as Start-Class. (rev · t) Importance assessed as Low-Class. (rev · t)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains/Assessment&oldid=1218760029"