Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cricket
articles		 Importance
Top High Mid Low None Total
Quality
Featured article FA 1 12 8 6 27
Featured list FL 1 2 4 22 29
Good article GA 4 15 6 2 27
B 2 32 70 32 1 137
Start 7 199 525 714 598 2043
Stub 49 617 867 3943 5476
Assessed 11 298 1239 1647 4544 7739
Unassessed 1 33 3289 3323
Total 11 298 1240 1680 7833 11062

Articles: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | Start-Class | Stub Class | Unassessed

Welcome to the assessment department of the Cricket WikiProject! This department focuses on assessing the quality of Wikipedia's cricket 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 recognising excellent contributions and identifying topics in need of further work.

The ratings are done in a distributed fashion through parameters in the {{WikiProject Cricket}} project banner; this causes the articles to be placed in the appropriate sub-categories of Category:Cricket articles by quality and Category:Cricket articles by importance, which serve as the foundation for an automatically generated worklist.

For advice about formal reviews, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review.

 Cricket
WikiProject
Lead article talk
Portal talk
Root category talk
Main project page talk
 → Featured material
 → Notability guidelines
 → Style guide
 → Quiz
Announcements and open tasks
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → To-do list talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Article assessment talk
Reviews talk
Media talk
Images talk
edit · changes

Contents

[edit] Parameters

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

{{WikiProject Cricket|parameters}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

[edit] Peer reviews

Peer reviews are meant to be informal and do not necessarily result in a rating being given. If requesting a peer review, include a parameter in the template call:

  • peer-review=yes

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Review#Peer_review for full instructions.

[edit] A-class criteria

An article that has been proposed for A-class should have its A-class review status included in the template call:

  • A-Class=pass (article has passed an A-class review)
  • A-Class=current (article is currently undergoing an A-class review)
  • A-Class=fail (article has failed an A-class review)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket/Review#A-Class_review for full instructions.

[edit] B-class criteria

To attain B-class, an article is subject to six criteria that will ensure it has the required quality even though it may not yet be complete in terms of content. For all B-class and Start-class articles (Stub-class optional) the reviewer should add the following parameters to the template call (see template for exact syntax):

  • B-Class-1=yes/no (it is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations)
  • B-Class-2=yes/no (it reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies)
  • B-Class-3=yes/no (it has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content)
  • B-Class-4=yes/no (it is free from major grammatical errors)
  • B-Class-5=yes/no (it contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams)
  • B-Class-6=yes/no (it is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates)

If the article is given B-Class status as a result of being reviewed using these criteria, it is automatically placed in Category:Reviewed B-Class cricket articles (see above).

[edit] Unassessed articles

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

[edit] Importance parameter

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

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.

[edit] Task force parameter

Task forces may optionally be established by the project to concentrate on specific areas of study (they are widely employed by many other projects) and this template caters for the option by enabling a task force parameter to be set. Thus, if an article is being supported by an early cricket task force, the parameter Early-cricket-task-force would be included in the template call and set to yes.

[edit] Quality scale

It is important to remember that the "class" of an article has two factors: completeness and quality. These do not necessarily overlap or interlink. Completeness is measured by the classes A, B, Start and Stub where A is an essentially complete article and Stub is little more than a place-marker. Quality is measured by classes FA and GA.

To be rated GA in quality, the article must at least be B-class in terms of its quality, according to the B-class criteria above; and to be rated FA quality it must be A-class in terms of completeness. But, an A-class complete article may not necessarily meet GA quality criteria.


Article progress grading scheme
Label Criteria Reader's experience Editor's experience Examples
Featured article FA
{{FA-Class}}		 Reserved exclusively for articles that have received "Featured article" status after peer review, and meet the current criteria for featured articles. Definitive. Outstanding, thorough article; a great source for encyclopedic information. No further editing necessary, unless new published information has come to light. Category:FA-Class cricket articles
A
{{A-Class}}		 Essentially a completed article. Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and comprehensive description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It must be of a length suitable for the subject (i.e., it can be a very short article if there is limited data available). Subject to length, it should have a well-written, concise introduction and be well-structured: e.g., there should be a structured series of appropriate headings to break up the content. It must have sufficient external literature references, which should include published literature (i.e., books, newspapers, magazines, journals, etc.) and not just other websites, unless a website is the main or only significant source. Ideally, it should be well illustrated with no copyright problems (obviously, copyright may prevent any useful pictures being included). An A-class article is essentially complete but, providing it is of sufficient length and meets other quality criteria such as the appropriate use of illustrations, tables, statistics and so on, it could potentially be considered for featured article status: i.e., if it corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard. Very useful to readers. An essentially complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May benefit from additional effort to improve style, format or layout but otherwise a "finished job". Minor edits and adjustments might improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. Issues of breadth, layout and balance may need work. Illustrations, tables, points of structure or format might be addressed. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage. Category:A-Class cricket articles
Good article GA
{{GA-Class}}		 The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. By definition, the article still needs some work to reach featured article (FA-class) standard, but it is otherwise a good article. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles providing they are essentially complete. Note that being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class. Note also that a B-class article can qualify for GA-class without being A-class (i.e., an incomplete article can be a GA but only a complete article can be an FA). Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject although not necessarily complete. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but some work still required. Additional editing will certainly improve the article in terms of content, style or structure, but not necessarily for a good reader experience as the article will already be useful for most purposes. Category:GA-Class cricket articles
B
{{B-Class}}		 Has all of the elements described in Start-Class below and substantial content, although it is not a completed article. If it has attracted attention tags such as "cleanup" or "citation required", it must be relegated to Start. The article must be checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:
  • referencing and citation
  • coverage and accuracy
  • structure
  • grammar
  • supporting materials
  • categories and templates

To complete this checklist, see the template and add the relevant options to the template call

 Useful to many, but not all, readers. A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would find it incomplete or perhaps too high-level. Nevertheless it has passed the necessary quality checks and its only real failing is incomplete content. Considerable editing is still needed to finalise the content which may include filling in some important gaps. B-class articles that attract attention tags other than "expand" must be relegated to Start-class until the tags can be cleared. Category:B-Class cricket articles
Start
{{Start-Class}}		 The article lacks quality and has failed at least one of the B-Class criteria. It has a meaningful amount of good content but it is still weak in many areas and it may have attracted attention tags. It presents a reasonable overview of the subject and has perhaps a number of salient facts. It should have an acceptable, if basic, structure. For example, an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. As a rule of thumb, it has at least one serious element of gathered materials, such as:
  • multiple links that will help to explain or illustrate the topic
  • a subheading that fully treats an element of the topic
  • multiple subheadings to indicate material that could usefully be added
  • a useful table
  • an illustrative picture or graphic

If there are policy problems such as unreferenced, copyright, NPOV, cleanup, etc. the article (if not a stub) must be placed in Start-class.

 Not useless as it should at least present an overview. Some readers will find what they are looking for, but most will not. Most articles in this category have the look of an article "under construction" and needing expansion. A reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere. The priority is to improve the quality of the article to meet B-Class criteria and, thereby, fully resolve all significant policy issues. A secondary consideration is to expand the content. Substantial editing is needed. Category:Start-Class cricket articles
Stub
{{Stub-Class}}		 The article may be just a brief introduction, perhaps a mere definition; or a rough collection of information that needs much work to improve it. It is usually very short and probably lacking essential references, categorisation, structure, etc. Probably useless to a reader who is familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term means. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition. Any editing and additional material must be helpful, especially categorisation, references, structure, more content. Category:Stub-Class cricket articles
Needed
{{Needed-Class}}		 The article does not exist and needs to be created (may have a redlink somewhere).      

[edit] Importance scale

The criteria used for rating article importance are not necessarily 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). For example, although 2007 Cricket World Cup has the same long-term "mid-importance" as articles on previous World Cups, it was rated "top-importance" while it was a live event and was likely to be looked up by many readers. Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may at times be rated higher than topics which are definably "more important" but which are of interest primarily to regular followers of cricket.

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 a Western audience — but which are of high notability in other places — should still be highly rated. For example, Ranji Trophy is equal in importance to County Championship.

Status Template Meaning of Status
Top {{Top-Class}} This article is of the utmost importance to the project, as it provides key information about a major topic that is fundamental to a study of the subject.
High {{High-Class}} This article is very important to the project, as it covers either a general area of knowledge or provides information about a significant topic.
Mid {{Mid-Class}} This article is relatively important to the project, as it provides more specific knowledge of areas that a serious reader would need to understand.
Low {{Low-Class}} This article is significant but has limited importance to the project, as it expands the reader's overall knowledge of the subject into areas of general interest.
Bottom {{Bottom-Class}} This article has no real significance to the project, but it covers additional topics of general or specific interest, some of which could be described as trivia, though all are notable in their own right. Others may be articles of high importance to another project that have an indirect connection with cricket. The category was created by the WikiProject to counter-balance "top importance" and to place "mid-importance" into the actual middle. In addition it serves to separate trivia from articles of low but significant importance.
NA not assessed This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be assessed and its parameter is NA (not assessed).

[edit] Importance standards

Note that the importance status values and meanings in the above table are widely applicable across Wikipedia and are standard to many projects, although there are variations to suit the needs of a particular project. Their purpose is to enable project members to assess the importance of individual articles within the context of the project's subject-matter. In this case, the subject-matter is cricket. Note especially that it is essential to use assessments objectively by application of the criteria in the status table and (relatively speaking) not subjectively based on your personal view of, for example, a particular player's merit. Unfortunately, a measure of subjectivity is necessary where assessment of people's importance is performed.

Hence, cricket and any article that strongly supplements it is of "top" importance. Strong supplements would be articles that have been developed separately for reasons such as space or presentation but are essentially part of the key article: e.g., Laws of cricket, History of cricket.

The WikiProject has proposed that WG Grace and Donald Bradman are of top importance because these two players pre-dominated over their contemporaries. Other great players and administrators have not had the same level of impact and should be rated "high". Note that any "high" rating for a player or team is subject to approval by a registered assessor and that an assessor may veto any "top" or "high" nomination if he/she considers that it is inappropriate and is based on "hero-worship" or another subjective motive.

Here a few examples to illustrate the concept and the points above:

  • National teams - "high" if full ICC member (i.e., plays Test cricket); "mid" if associate; "low" if affiliate
  • National cricket councils - the ICC is "top" and bear in mind the historic importance of a special case like MCC, which is also "top"; the rest are generally "high" to "low"
  • Cricket terminology - all these are specific except if the article is a list or in some other way generic; cricket bat as an essential piece of kit would be "high", yorker as an optional tactic would be "mid"; if the article is generic it may be "high" and if it is an essential supplement to cricket it could be "top"
  • Venues - slightly difficult as cricket has a few venues such as Lord's, MCG and The Oval that have perhaps exaggerated importance by association with the sport's history and administration; even so, any notable Test venue like Trent Bridge should also be "high" as "general areas of knowledge" (given their histories), while other other venues would be "mid" or "low" (venues are generic, not specific, because of their histories and usages)
  • Non-international first-class clubs and teams - these are also generic for historical reasons and must be rated as "high", "mid" or "low" - it may be arguable that a highly successful club such as Yorkshire CCC should be "high" while an unsuccessful one like Derbyshire CCC should be "mid"
  • Specific events including individual season, tour, series, competition, match or incident reviews must generally be rated "mid " or "low" depending on their significance to the subject - hence the 1902 Ashes series is "mid" because it was certainly significant but the Sydney Riot in 1879 is "low" or even "bottom" because it has little significance to the subject; a few events may be rated "high" because of their impact on the sport's development (e.g., 1787 English cricket season which was a watershed in the sport's history and development)
  • Noted players and people - exactly as for specific events above as a player must be viewed in specific terms - unfortunately, a measure of subjectivity is unavoidable here

It has been suggested previously that national captains and players with many Test appearances are more important than others but this is an erroneous view as it is based on statistics and not on history. There are numerous important individuals in cricket's long history who never played Test cricket and even some who never played first-class cricket (e.g., in the 1970s, Kerry Packer was far more significant than Mike Denness). Equally, there are some people who played for, and even captained, Test teams who should not have been selected. Judgment of a person's achievement must be tempered by consideration of what he or she actually achieved in terms of cricket as a subject and what impact he or she had on the subject's development. It is not enough to say: "he was a good player".

[edit] 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 use the peer review department.

[edit] Requests via old method

  • Bodyline I've made quite a few changes to this article before I realised it was FA class so I'm a bit concerned. Most of my changes were based on info in the Douglas Jardine article however none of it is really sourced. Having said that, none of the info in bodyline is directly sourced either. I've tried to make clear why I felt the info is important in the talk and it seems better now (assuming the DJ article info is correct). I also feel there is a bit more info in the DJ article that maybe should be moved or copied to the bodyline article but I'm hesitant to change an FA any more by myself especially given that I don't know much about the controversy. There's also an issue that needs to be addressed in the talk. On a related note, I also think the DJ article needs to be trimmed since the bodyline article should be the main article for the controversy. We probably should go in to a bit of detail in DJ especially in relation to his role but probably not as much as we currently do IMHO. Nil Einne 18:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Bart King - Well...I think I've finished my work on the article. It is up for Peer Review right now, and when that is done, I'm going to try it out as a Good Article Candidate. After all the input is gathered up there, I'll try putting it together for an FAC. In the meantime, any other advice or opinions that can be given by members of the project would be most welcome. I've put a lot of work into it, so if you could at least take a look, I'd be grateful. Once this is done, I'll take a little break back with WP:HV before tackling the rest of the Philadelphian cricketers. Thanks a lot.--Eva bd 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Stands to reason, in fairness. I've noticed that no ground that I can find has been rated; I'll go through and rate them at some point. In the meantime I've rated Lord's as High. AMBerry (talk | contribs)
I rated The Oval and Melbourne Cricket Ground as high also. Ansell 10:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Imran Khan - I was surprised to see it wasn't even part of the WikiProject! - Ozzykhan 22:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't surprise me, very few grounds had the template on their talk pages until I started adding them... meantime I've rated Imran Khan as High importance and B class. AMBerry (talk | contribs) 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • [[1]]. Could someone assess this article. I have not done any work on this but when I stumbled across this article and found that it has not been assessed I thought that I should make you aware of this. I believe that this is a good article and could result in a a good rating if it is assessed. I would be glad if you were able to give this article a rating.

Thanks 02blythed 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 1998-99
Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 1994-95
Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 1988-89
Australian cricket team in Pakistan in 1982-83 - - Ozzykhan 15:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I created the article on Naseem Ashraf yesterday, after seeing that it was on the list of "most wanted articles for Pakistan Cricket", would like a review. -- Zainub 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I did a complete re-write of: Asian Test Championship, and moved the championship specific stuff to two subpages:

- 1998-99 Asian Test Championship - 2001-02 Asian Test Championship - Ozzykhan 21:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like an A class article to me. Could do with one or two more direct links to the sources for the statistics and possibly an expanded lead section but that doesn't diminish its A status as comparable to other FA cricket lists. Ansell 23:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok I've added cites so now all tables have sources. The batting/bowling feats have also been sourced and the lead section has also been expanded. Monsta666 11:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Could someone have a look at Kyle McCallan and do an assessment on it. I wrote it a while ago but it currently doesn't have a rating. I'm quite proud of it and think that with a bit more work it could be got up to Good article status. Andrew nixon 14:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Hadlow - The section on Hadlow Cricket Club is not referenced, although a list of cricket sources is given. Would this section be better split off the main article to form its own article? Mjroots (talk) 16:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
It probably would be, though not necessarily for that reason. It just doesn't seem a very good "fit" within the article on the village. Ordinarily a village cricket team wouldn't be notable, but in this case its history appears to be distinguished enough that it probably is and so merits its own article. JH (talk page) 17:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
If it is split, it needs to be born in mind that Hadlow Cricket Club is still active (AFAIK) and at least a paragraph on the modern club will be needed. Mjroots (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
There has been no objection on the Hadlow talk page, so I'm going to split the section off into a new article Hadlow Cricket Club.Mjroots (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hadlow Cricket Club now has its own article, the remarks re referencing still apply, as although the sources are mentioned, there is no way to tell which statement comes from which source. Y Done Mjroots (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC) The referencing issue has been addressed. Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Participants

Please feel free to add your name to this list if you would like to join the assessment team

  1. Mdmanser (talk · contribs)
  2. DaGizza (talk · contribs)
  3. Ansell (talk · contribs)
  4. AMBerry (talk · contribs) - in particular domestic / women's cricket
  5. BlackJack (talk · contribs) - emphatically cricket history; so not too interested in the limited overs era
  6. Zainubrazvi (talk · contribs)
  7. Jhall1 (talk · contribs)
  8. BlueJohnMine (talk · contribs)
  9. Monsta666 (talk · contribs) - Interested in modern cricket
  10. Dweller (talk · contribs)
  11. Jim Hardie (talk · contribs)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Frequently asked questions

How do I add an article to the WikiProject? 
Just add {{WikiProject Cricket}} to the talk page; there's no need to do anything else.
How can I get my article rated? 
Please list it in the section for assessment requests.
Who can assess articles? 
Any member of the cricket WikiProject is free to add or change the rating of an article. Please add your name to the list of participants if you wish to assess articles on a regular basis.
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.
Where can I get more comments about my article? 
Place a message at WT:CRIC and ask if the project members can conduct more thorough examination of the 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? 
To a point, yes, and unavoidably so where people are concerned although objectivity is the required method. See, in particular, the disclaimers on the importance scale.
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 statistics may be more accessible.

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