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 {{Numismaticnotice}} 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 {{Numismaticnotice}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.

2. Someone put a {{Numismaticnotice}} 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.

Instructions

An article's assessment is generated from the class and importance parameters in the {{Numismaticnotice}} project banner on its talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax):

{{Numismaticnotice| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

FA

A

GA

B

Start

Stub

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class numismatic articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class numismatic articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class numismatic articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class numismatic articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class numismatic articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class numismatic articles)

For pages that are not articles, the following values can also be used for the class parameter:

• List (for lists; adds pages to Category:List-Class numismatic articles)
• Template (for templates; adds pages to Category:Template-Class numismatic articles)
• Dab or Disambig (for disambiguation pages; add pages to Category:Disambig-Class numismatic articles)
• Cat or Category (for categories; adds pages to Category:Category-Class numismatic articles)
• Image (for images; adds pages to Category:Image-Class numismatic articles)
• Portal (for portals; adds pages to Category:Portal-Class numismatic articles)
• NA (for any other pages where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article numismatic pages)

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

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

• Top (adds articles to Category:Top-importance numismatic articles)
• High (adds articles to Category:High-importance numismatic articles)
• Mid (adds articles to Category:Mid-importance numismatic articles)
• Low (adds articles to Category:Low-importance numismatic articles)

The parameter is not used if an article's class is set to NA, and may be omitted in those cases. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Articles for which a valid importance is not provided are listed in Category:Unknown-importance numismatic articles. The importance should be assigned according to the importance scale below.

Quality scale

WikiProject article progress grading scheme [  v • d • e  ]

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editing suggestions	Example
FA {{FA-Class}}	The article has attained Featured article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured article criteria: A featured article exemplifies our very best work and features professional standards of writing and presentation. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes. It is— (a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (c) factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (e) 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. It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of: (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections; (b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents (see section help); and (c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes1 or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended). Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	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.	Tourette Syndrome (as of June 2008)
FL {{FL-Class}}	The article has attained Featured list status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the featured list criteria: Prose. It features professional standards of writing. Lead. It has an engaging lead section that introduces the subject, and defines the scope and inclusion criteria of the list. Comprehensiveness. It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing a complete set of items where practical, or otherwise at least all of the major items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about entries. Structure. It is easy to navigate, and includes—where helpful—section headings and table sort facilities. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages. Visual appeal. It makes suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and colour; it has images if they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions or "alt" text; and it has a minimal proportion of red links. 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.			FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives (as of January 2008)
A {{A-Class}}	The article is well organized and essentially complete, having been reviewed by impartial reviewers from a WikiProject or elsewhere. More detailed criteria Provides a well-written, clear and complete description of the topic, as described in Wikipedia:How to write a great article. 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, WikiProject Films).	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting.	Expert knowledge may be needed to tweak the article, and style issues may need addressing. Peer-review may help.	Durian (as of March 2007)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has attained Good article status. More detailed criteria The article must meet the good article criteria: Well-written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Useful to nearly all readers, with no obvious problems; approaching (although not equalling) the quality of a professional encyclopedia.	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.	International Space Station (as of February 2007)
B {{B-Class}}	The article is mostly complete and without major issues, but requires some further work to reach Good Article standards. B-Class articles should meet the six B-Class criteria. More detailed criteria Shortcuts: WP:WIABCA WP:BCLASS WP:1.0/B The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of citation templates such as {{cite web}} is not required, but the use of <ref></ref> tags is encouraged. 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. 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. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.	No reader should be 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, and expert knowledge is increasingly needed. The inclusion of supporting materials should also be considered if practical, and the article checked for general compliance with the manual of style and related style guidelines.	Jammu and Kashmir (as of October 2007)
C {{C-Class}}	The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. More detailed criteria The article is better developed in style, structure and quality than Start-Class, but fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance or flow; or contain policy violations such as bias or original research. Articles on fictional topics are likely to be marked as C-Class if they are written from an in-universe perspective.	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 address cleanup issues.	Exeter Cathedral (as of June 2008)
Start {{Start-Class}}	An article that is developing, but which is quite incomplete and, most notably, lacks adequate reliable sources. More detailed criteria The article has a usable amount of good content, but it is weak in many areas, usually in referencing. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and MoS compliance non-existent; but the article should satisfy fundamental content policies such as notability and BLP, and provide enough sources to establish verifiability. No Start-Class article should be in any danger of being speedily deleted.	Provides some meaningful content, but the majority of readers will need more.	Provision of references to reliable sources should be prioritised; the article will also need substantial improvements in content and organisation.	Real analysis (as of November 2006)
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	A very basic description of the topic. More detailed criteria The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition	Any editing or additional material can be helpful. The provision of meaningful content should be a priority.	Coffee table book (as of July 2005)

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.

Statistics

Current status

Numismatic articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	1	2	2			5
	FL			1			1
	A	2	6	2			10
	GA	1		2		2	5
	B	13	125	138	8		284
	C	1		2	1		4
	Start	6	191	395	96	5	693
	Stub	2	51	587	123	6	769
	Assessed	26	375	1129	228	13	1771
	Unassessed	1				168	169
	Total	27	375	1129	228	181	1940

Historical counts

All figures given for the end of each month

	May 2006		June 2006
FA	#	%	#	%
A
GA
B
Start
Stub
Unassessed
Top
High
Mid
Total

Monthly changes

Percent change is given relative to the prior count in each class.

	June 2006
FA	#	%
A
GA
B
Start
Stub
Unassessed
Total

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 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 Joe 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. :) Joe 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. Joe 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. Joe 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. Joe 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 Wikipedia: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"  :) Joe 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"  :) Joe I 12:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Macedonian denar needs assessment. Alr 19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done :) Joe 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. Joe 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 Joe 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. Joe 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  :) Joe I 06:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the {{money-stub}}, Joe 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, Joe 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics#Currencies of the same name, 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? Joe 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. Joe 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. Joe I 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

• Historical exchange rates of Argentine currency has no rating yet. --Alpertron 20:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Got it. Joe 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. Joe 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)

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)

Went thru Category:GA-Class numismatic articles. Almost all were not GA. Joe I 08:10, 4 October 2007 (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.