Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents 1 Frequently asked questions 2 Instructions 2.1 Quality scale 2.2 Importance scale 2.3 Importance standards 3 Requesting an assessment 4 Participants 5 Log 6 Statistics

[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 below.

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? 

The peer review department can conduct more thorough examination of articles; please submit it for review there.

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 (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!

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.

[edit] Instructions

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| ... | class=??? | importance=??? | ...}}

The following values may be used for the class parameter:

• FA (adds articles to Category:FA-Class cricket articles)
• A (adds articles to Category:A-Class cricket articles)
• GA (adds articles to Category:GA-Class cricket articles)
• B (adds articles to Category:B-Class cricket articles)
• Start (adds articles to Category:Start-Class cricket articles)
• Stub (adds articles to Category:Stub-Class cricket articles)
• NA (for pages, such as templates or disambiguation pages, where assessment is unnecessary; adds pages to Category:Non-article cricket pages)

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.

The following values may be used for the importance parameter:

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

[edit] Quality scale

Article progress grading scheme

Label	Criteria	Reader's experience	Editor's experience	Examples
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.	The Ashes (as of July 10 2006)
A {{A-Class}}	Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be of a length suitable for the subject, with a well-written introduction and an appropriate series of headings to break up the content. It should have sufficient external literature references, preferably from the "hard" (peer-reviewed where appropriate) literature rather than websites. Should be well illustrated, with no copyright problems. At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status, corresponds to the "Wikipedia 1.0" standard.	Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting. May miss a few relevant points.	Minor edits and adjustments would improve the article, particularly if brought to bear by a subject-matter expert. In particular, issues of breadth, completeness, and balance may need work. Peer-review would be helpful at this stage.	Donald Bradman, History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900)
GA {{GA-Class}}	The article has passed through the Good article nomination process and been granted GA status, meeting the good article standards. This should be used for articles that still need some work to reach featured article standards, but that are otherwise good. Good articles that may succeed in FAC should be considered A-Class articles, but being a Good article is not a requirement for A-Class.	Useful to nearly all readers. A good treatment of the subject. No obvious problems, gaps, excessive information. Adequate for most purposes, but other encyclopedias could do a better job.	Some editing will clearly be helpful, but not necessary for a good reader experience. If the article is not already fully wikified, now is the time.	History of the West Indian cricket team, Indian cricket team
B {{B-Class}}	Has several of the elements described in "start", usually a majority of the material needed for a completed article. Nonetheless, it has significant gaps or missing elements or references, needs substantial editing for English language usage and/or clarity, balance of content, or contains other policy problems such as copyright, NPOV or NOR. With NPOV a well written B-class may correspond to the "Wikipedia 0.5" or "usable" standard. Articles that are close to GA status but don't meet the Good article criteria should be B- or Start-class articles.	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 have trouble doing so, or would risk error in derivative work.	Considerable editing is still needed, including filling in some important gaps or correcting significant policy errors. Articles for which cleanup is needed will typically have this designation to start with.	Australian cricket team, English cricket team
Start {{Start-Class}}	The article has a meaningful amount of good content, but it is still weak in many areas, and may lack a table. For example an article on Africa might cover the geography well, but be weak on history and culture. Has at least one serious element of gathered materials, including any one of the following: a particularly 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	Not useless. 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 a reader genuinely interested in the topic is likely to seek additional information elsewhere.	Substantial/major editing is needed, most material for a complete article needs to be added. This article usually isn't even good enough for a cleanup tag: it still needs to be built.
Stub {{Stub-Class}}	The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to bring it to A-Class level. It is usually very short, but can be of any length if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible.	May be useless to a reader only passingly familiar with the term. Possibly useful to someone who has no idea what the term meant. At best a brief, informed dictionary definition.	Any editing or additional material can be helpful.	Ashish Nehra
Needed {{Needed-Class}}	The article does not exist and needs to be created.

[edit] 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 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.

Status	Template	Meaning of Status
Top	{{Top-Class}}	This article is of the utmost importance to this project, as it forms the basis of all information.
High	{{High-Class}}	This article is fairly important to this project, as it covers a general area of knowledge.
Mid	{{Mid-Class}}	This article is relatively important to this project, as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas.
Low	{{Low-Class}}	This article is of little importance to this project, but it covers a highly specific area of knowledge or an obscure piece of trivia.
None	None	This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be analyzed.

[edit] Importance standards

Note that the importance status values and meanings in the above table are applicable across Wikipedia and are standard to all projects. 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 not subjectively based on your personal view of, for example, a particular player's merit.

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 difference between "high" and "mid" importance is the difference between "general" and "specific", as stated in the criteria above. An article about a team is general while one about a person is specific. Thus, an article about the England cricket team is high importance as it is a general subject that inter alia encompasses information about more than 600 individuals who have played for the team since its inception (as a Test cricket entity) in 1877. It follows that an article about an individual England player, even a truly great player like WG Grace is specific and must be classified as "mid" importance to the project in terms of its subject-matter. It is here that subjectivity may be difficult to restrain but the fact is that according to the rating criteria as applied to the subject-matter of the project, an individual like WG Grace is of "mid" importance.

To express this in lay terms, although Grace was arguably the greatest player of all time, he was only a player. He was not as important as the England team or even the Gloucestershire team that he played for; and they are not as important as the sport itself. Hence, cricket is "top", England is "high", Grace is "mid". Remember that this objective method of rating criteria applies across the whole site.

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 - ditto, but bear in mind the historic importance of certain special cases like MCC, which must be "high"
• Cricket terminology - all these are specific except if the article is a list or in some other way generic, hence the rating must be "mid" or "low" (e.g., cricket bat as an essential piece of kit would be "mid", yorker as an optional tactic would be "low"); 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 "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" 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 "low"
• Specific events including individual season, tour, series, competition, match or incident reviews must 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" because it has little significance to the subject
• Noted players and people - exactly as for specific events above as a player must be viewed in specific terms (as per Grace example above) and so is "mid" or "low" depending on his or her significance to the subject; a significant person is one who shaped the course of events and thereby achieved much more in subject-matter terms than someone who was "just another good player" - 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 in the ground, let alone on the field. 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 feel free to list it below. If you are interested in more extensive comments on an article, please use the peer review department instead.

• 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)
• Lord's Cricket Ground - Currently unassessed, but surely of top importance. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 18:00, 22 February 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)

• Scottish cricket team in Bangladesh in 2006-07 - Have done a fair bit of work on this article and would like to see at what level it's at and where the majority of any improvements should be before carrying on. Cheers. AllynJ 18:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
• History of United States cricket - Could someone take a look at this page? I've done a pretty bold rewrite and I think it looks pretty good.--Eva ^bd 14:55, 8 April 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)

[edit] Participants

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

1. AMBerry (talk • contribs) - in particular domestic / women's cricket
2. Ansell (talk • contribs)
3. DaGizza (talk • contribs)
4. Mdmanser (talk • contribs)
5. Nobleeagle (talk • contribs) - more on the side of modern cricket as opposed to the pre-1970s stuff
6. BlackJack (talk • contribs) - emphatically cricket history; so not too interested in the limited overs era

[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] Statistics

Updated automatically

Cricket articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	3	2	8	20		33
	A	3	2	1	1		7
	GA		2		5	1	8
	B	5	14	25	20	2	66
	Start	2	13	29	29	13	86
	Stub	2	11	18	66	46	143
	Assessed	15	44	81	141	62	343
	Unassessed	0	5	5	14	139	163
	Total	15	49	86	155	201	506