This list is generated periodically.
view full worklist
Michigan articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 3 | 4 | 14 | 21 | |||
FL | 1 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 19 | ||
FM | 4 | 8 | 12 | ||||
GA | 4 | 13 | 155 | 172 | |||
B | 15 | 69 | 130 | 657 | 7 | 878 | |
C | 7 | 75 | 226 | 2,389 | 30 | 2,727 | |
Start | 6 | 104 | 740 | 8,719 | 56 | 9,625 | |
Stub | 69 | 5,264 | 36 | 5,369 | |||
List | 1 | 58 | 43 | 363 | 11 | 7 | 483 |
Category | 5,759 | 5,759 | |||||
Disambig | 2 | 180 | 182 | ||||
File | 2 | 350 | 352 | ||||
Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
Project | 24 | 24 | |||||
Redirect | 2 | 5 | 116 | 2,051 | 2,174 | ||
Template | 794 | 794 | |||||
Other | 23 | 23 | |||||
Assessed | 30 | 318 | 1,235 | 17,695 | 9,201 | 136 | 28,615 |
Unassessed | 1 | 3 | 1 | 48 | 53 | ||
Total | 30 | 318 | 1,236 | 17,698 | 9,202 | 184 | 28,668 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 94,220 | Ω = 5.01 |
I started this subproject to better coordinate, organize, and improve all the article concerning Michigan's physical geography. I have worked extensively in this subject on Wikipedia, and I believe it's time I began taking a more constructive roll by organizing this subproject with the collaboration of others in this project. I'm a college graduate in geography, so it is something I'm familiar with. Plus, I think I'm familiar enough with Wikipedia after almost five years to get things mostly right. — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė ♫ ♪ 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
So this project doesn't step on the toes of the cities subproject, here is the outline of articles that fall within the realm of physical geography. The cities subproject handles all the social geography articles relating to cities, villages, townships, and settlements in Michigan. This subproject deals with geological elements such as islands, rivers, lakes, mountains (there are a few), waterfalls, protected areas, etc. Also included in the scope of this subproject is the climate and weather of Michigan, which is a result of its physical geography.
The following list is not exhaustive and contains multiple subcategories to browse through the numerous articles.
These individual articles are the most important within the scope of this subproject. The following articles provide great lists for ideas on creating articles or improving already existing ones. Please include {{WikiProject Michigan}} on the talk page for any new articles.
I think Michigan deserves its own climate article ( Climate of Michigan) and not the one that redirects to a section in the main Michigan article. Michigan has some notoriously unique climate and weather patterns, as well as an infamous history of brutal storms, such as the Great Lakes Storm of 1913. I believe the Climate of Florida and Climate of Minnesota articles are very good— the latter being a featured article. A Michigan climate article should include a chart of average climates for some of the larger cities, as well as a discussion on the wide variety of Michigan's climate zones. It could also include information about rain/snowfall and other general data. In addition that, there should be a Climate of Detroit article. The climate section in the Detroit article is fairly poor. Detroit is the 11th largest city in the United States, and while it doesn't have any extraordinarily unique weather, it can provide extra information to draw readers to learn more about Detroit. The Climate of Dallas and Climate of Miami are good examples of city climate articles.
There is a fine line between geography and geology (physical geography). Michigan has unique and fascinating geology dating back hundreds of millions of years. It's been a desert, under several different prehistoric oceans, and most recently covered with glaciers. There aren't that many state geology articles, but Minnesota (as I often cite) has a spectacular Geology of Minnesota article. I favor the creation of a Geology of Michigan article. It's section on the main Michigan article is terrible, as is the section in the Geography of Michigan article. Many geological maps are in the public domain as works of the USGS, and those are readily available to be used in an article.
With very few exceptions, every article within this subproject should contain a corresponding infobox that can be used in the articles. Some articles may include more than one infobox if applicable. All infoboxes can at least include the following information: geographic location (such as body of water), coordinates, area, and municipality it is located in (state, county, township/city). Infoboxes should contain as much cited information as possible. Here are the following infoboxes with added notes as to what they should contain.
As noted in the list of rivers of Michigan article, several of the rivers linked actually go to a completely different river. This could primarily be because the link given is inaccurate. For example, Bell River goes to South Africa instead of the Bell River in Michigan. These links need to be touched up, but Bell River (Michigan) is redlinked since no article exists. While redlinks are generally okay on a moderate level ( avoid overlinking to nonexistent articles), links to wrong or disambiguation articles are wholly unacceptable but exist everywhere. Red links will be bot removed if they exist for too long or if that redlink appears in only one article. That is why none of the islands in list of islands of Michigan are linked (unless they have an article) since there would be hundreds of redlinks jumbling up the article. I don't like redlinks, but I moreover dislike links that go to inappropriate articles. This is a major concern since a lot of the names of physical features in Michigan are shared by other regions (or even within different areas of Michigan, such as a dozen Gull Islands).
It is very upsetting when measurements are listed only as American measurements and do not include IS (metric) measurements as well. This shows a level of Americentricism and doesn't represent a worldwide view to accomodate the 94% of the world that doesn't use or understand our American units. I highly doubt someone from Nauru is going to be researching Algonac State Park, but it is quite possible that someone from Windsor will look up the Detroit River. I believe there are two reasons American editors fail to include metric measurements in their edits. It could be because they simply don't know that metric should be included, or they don't know how to convert American measurements to metric. Wikipedia provides a {{ Convert}} template that can be used, but that can be confusing and hard to use accurately at times. It is sometimes simpler to do the calculations yourself and manually type in the measurements. There area a number of websites that will do the calculations for you with the click of a button. This website [1] is a great tool for automatic conversions, and a simple Google search, such as simply searching sq mi to sq km, will give you many different websites available.
When referring to geography, common American units for length include miles, yards, and feet (feet is also most commonly used for height in the case of elevations). Anything smaller than that rarely ever comes into play. American units for area include square mile, acres, or rarely, square feet. When dealing with length, only the measurement in the apprentices should be abbreviated. When referring to area, it should always be rendered as, for example, 15 mi² instead of spelled out as 15 square miles or 15 sq mi. The square ² can be found in the "Symbols" drop down tab when editing a page. For those unfamiliar with metric system, the standard units of metric measurement for length include kilometers (0.62 mi) and meters (3.28 ft). Anything smaller than that is rarely used for geography. Common metric units of measurement for area include square kilometers (0.37 mi²), hectares (2.47 acres), and square meters (10.76 ft²). Hectares (ha) are by far the most unfamiliar metric unit for Americans.
Always try to use appropriate reciprocal measurements for the two systems. For example, don't say 2.16 mi² (561 ha), because 561 hectares can more appropriately be written as 5.61 km². Also, don't say something like 34 acres (0.13 km²) or 34 acres (137,000 m²). It's probably a lot harder for a metric reader to figure out the area of 0.13 km² or 137,000 m². Reading 13 hectares (ha) is far more convenient. For ranges, make sure to include the range for both systems, for example, 0.5–2.5 miles (0.8–4.0 km). The amount of numbers used after the decimal is the discretion of the editor, but it should remain consistent throughout an article. As per standard English, numbers less than 10 should be spelled out if they are outside of an abbreviation or range, as in the following two unrelated sentences. The shoal is about 3–8 feet (0.9–2.4 m) beneath the surface and runs all the way to Grassy Island. He used his wealth to purchase three miles (4.8 km) of Trauxton's riverfront. Try to accommodate non-American readers (or those American readers that use metric) and make the conversions easy and useful in all articles.
This list is generated periodically.
view full worklist
Michigan articles by quality and importance | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | Importance | ||||||
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total | |
FA | 3 | 4 | 14 | 21 | |||
FL | 1 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 19 | ||
FM | 4 | 8 | 12 | ||||
GA | 4 | 13 | 155 | 172 | |||
B | 15 | 69 | 130 | 657 | 7 | 878 | |
C | 7 | 75 | 226 | 2,389 | 30 | 2,727 | |
Start | 6 | 104 | 740 | 8,719 | 56 | 9,625 | |
Stub | 69 | 5,264 | 36 | 5,369 | |||
List | 1 | 58 | 43 | 363 | 11 | 7 | 483 |
Category | 5,759 | 5,759 | |||||
Disambig | 2 | 180 | 182 | ||||
File | 2 | 350 | 352 | ||||
Portal | 1 | 1 | |||||
Project | 24 | 24 | |||||
Redirect | 2 | 5 | 116 | 2,051 | 2,174 | ||
Template | 794 | 794 | |||||
Other | 23 | 23 | |||||
Assessed | 30 | 318 | 1,235 | 17,695 | 9,201 | 136 | 28,615 |
Unassessed | 1 | 3 | 1 | 48 | 53 | ||
Total | 30 | 318 | 1,236 | 17,698 | 9,202 | 184 | 28,668 |
WikiWork factors ( ?) | ω = 94,220 | Ω = 5.01 |
I started this subproject to better coordinate, organize, and improve all the article concerning Michigan's physical geography. I have worked extensively in this subject on Wikipedia, and I believe it's time I began taking a more constructive roll by organizing this subproject with the collaboration of others in this project. I'm a college graduate in geography, so it is something I'm familiar with. Plus, I think I'm familiar enough with Wikipedia after almost five years to get things mostly right. — №tǒŖïøŭş 4lĭfė ♫ ♪ 16:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
So this project doesn't step on the toes of the cities subproject, here is the outline of articles that fall within the realm of physical geography. The cities subproject handles all the social geography articles relating to cities, villages, townships, and settlements in Michigan. This subproject deals with geological elements such as islands, rivers, lakes, mountains (there are a few), waterfalls, protected areas, etc. Also included in the scope of this subproject is the climate and weather of Michigan, which is a result of its physical geography.
The following list is not exhaustive and contains multiple subcategories to browse through the numerous articles.
These individual articles are the most important within the scope of this subproject. The following articles provide great lists for ideas on creating articles or improving already existing ones. Please include {{WikiProject Michigan}} on the talk page for any new articles.
I think Michigan deserves its own climate article ( Climate of Michigan) and not the one that redirects to a section in the main Michigan article. Michigan has some notoriously unique climate and weather patterns, as well as an infamous history of brutal storms, such as the Great Lakes Storm of 1913. I believe the Climate of Florida and Climate of Minnesota articles are very good— the latter being a featured article. A Michigan climate article should include a chart of average climates for some of the larger cities, as well as a discussion on the wide variety of Michigan's climate zones. It could also include information about rain/snowfall and other general data. In addition that, there should be a Climate of Detroit article. The climate section in the Detroit article is fairly poor. Detroit is the 11th largest city in the United States, and while it doesn't have any extraordinarily unique weather, it can provide extra information to draw readers to learn more about Detroit. The Climate of Dallas and Climate of Miami are good examples of city climate articles.
There is a fine line between geography and geology (physical geography). Michigan has unique and fascinating geology dating back hundreds of millions of years. It's been a desert, under several different prehistoric oceans, and most recently covered with glaciers. There aren't that many state geology articles, but Minnesota (as I often cite) has a spectacular Geology of Minnesota article. I favor the creation of a Geology of Michigan article. It's section on the main Michigan article is terrible, as is the section in the Geography of Michigan article. Many geological maps are in the public domain as works of the USGS, and those are readily available to be used in an article.
With very few exceptions, every article within this subproject should contain a corresponding infobox that can be used in the articles. Some articles may include more than one infobox if applicable. All infoboxes can at least include the following information: geographic location (such as body of water), coordinates, area, and municipality it is located in (state, county, township/city). Infoboxes should contain as much cited information as possible. Here are the following infoboxes with added notes as to what they should contain.
As noted in the list of rivers of Michigan article, several of the rivers linked actually go to a completely different river. This could primarily be because the link given is inaccurate. For example, Bell River goes to South Africa instead of the Bell River in Michigan. These links need to be touched up, but Bell River (Michigan) is redlinked since no article exists. While redlinks are generally okay on a moderate level ( avoid overlinking to nonexistent articles), links to wrong or disambiguation articles are wholly unacceptable but exist everywhere. Red links will be bot removed if they exist for too long or if that redlink appears in only one article. That is why none of the islands in list of islands of Michigan are linked (unless they have an article) since there would be hundreds of redlinks jumbling up the article. I don't like redlinks, but I moreover dislike links that go to inappropriate articles. This is a major concern since a lot of the names of physical features in Michigan are shared by other regions (or even within different areas of Michigan, such as a dozen Gull Islands).
It is very upsetting when measurements are listed only as American measurements and do not include IS (metric) measurements as well. This shows a level of Americentricism and doesn't represent a worldwide view to accomodate the 94% of the world that doesn't use or understand our American units. I highly doubt someone from Nauru is going to be researching Algonac State Park, but it is quite possible that someone from Windsor will look up the Detroit River. I believe there are two reasons American editors fail to include metric measurements in their edits. It could be because they simply don't know that metric should be included, or they don't know how to convert American measurements to metric. Wikipedia provides a {{ Convert}} template that can be used, but that can be confusing and hard to use accurately at times. It is sometimes simpler to do the calculations yourself and manually type in the measurements. There area a number of websites that will do the calculations for you with the click of a button. This website [1] is a great tool for automatic conversions, and a simple Google search, such as simply searching sq mi to sq km, will give you many different websites available.
When referring to geography, common American units for length include miles, yards, and feet (feet is also most commonly used for height in the case of elevations). Anything smaller than that rarely ever comes into play. American units for area include square mile, acres, or rarely, square feet. When dealing with length, only the measurement in the apprentices should be abbreviated. When referring to area, it should always be rendered as, for example, 15 mi² instead of spelled out as 15 square miles or 15 sq mi. The square ² can be found in the "Symbols" drop down tab when editing a page. For those unfamiliar with metric system, the standard units of metric measurement for length include kilometers (0.62 mi) and meters (3.28 ft). Anything smaller than that is rarely used for geography. Common metric units of measurement for area include square kilometers (0.37 mi²), hectares (2.47 acres), and square meters (10.76 ft²). Hectares (ha) are by far the most unfamiliar metric unit for Americans.
Always try to use appropriate reciprocal measurements for the two systems. For example, don't say 2.16 mi² (561 ha), because 561 hectares can more appropriately be written as 5.61 km². Also, don't say something like 34 acres (0.13 km²) or 34 acres (137,000 m²). It's probably a lot harder for a metric reader to figure out the area of 0.13 km² or 137,000 m². Reading 13 hectares (ha) is far more convenient. For ranges, make sure to include the range for both systems, for example, 0.5–2.5 miles (0.8–4.0 km). The amount of numbers used after the decimal is the discretion of the editor, but it should remain consistent throughout an article. As per standard English, numbers less than 10 should be spelled out if they are outside of an abbreviation or range, as in the following two unrelated sentences. The shoal is about 3–8 feet (0.9–2.4 m) beneath the surface and runs all the way to Grassy Island. He used his wealth to purchase three miles (4.8 km) of Trauxton's riverfront. Try to accommodate non-American readers (or those American readers that use metric) and make the conversions easy and useful in all articles.