Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Articles: FA-Class | A Class | GA-Class | B-Class | C-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.

WikiProject Cricket Articles by importance (refresh)
 Top   High   Mid   Low   Bottom   NA   ???  Total
15 426 5,948 17,678 0 4,941 17 29,025

Parameters[edit]

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:

Peer reviews[edit]

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.

A-class criteria[edit]

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.

B-class criteria[edit]

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, C-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 reasonably covers the topic using WP:NPOV and contains no major omissions or inaccuracies)
  • B-Class-2=yes/no (it uses good English and is free from major grammatical, syntax and spelling errors)
  • 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 provides adequate navigation through links, categories and appropriate templates)
  • B-Class-5=yes/no (it is suitably referenced and all major points have appropriate inline citations)
  • B-Class-6=yes/no (it contains appropriate supporting materials such as an infobox, images or diagrams)

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).

C-class criteria[edit]

C-class is awarded to articles that pass most of the B-class criteria above, and the passes should normally include all of criteria #2 to #5. Typically, a C-class article will lack one or both of #1 (sufficient content) or #6 (supporting materials).

A very short article, even if it includes all known data about the subject, will fail #1 but there is no reason why it should not pass all the other five and hence qualify for C-class.

If the article does not meet C-class, it will be awarded start-class.

Start-class and stub-class[edit]

A stub is an article that contains little more than a definition or a brief overview. It must have sufficient content to comply with WP:CRIN and it must be verifiable but it might yet consist of just a couple of sentences. A stub will normally fail all six B-class criteria, particularly #1.

A start-class article is, broadly speaking, an expanded stub that may pass one or more of the B-class criteria but is not up to the C-class standard outlined above.

In many cases, the reviewer must take a subjective view of the threshold between a stub and a weak start, the key probably being the article's potential growth. Some articles are bound to be short because of limited scope or lack of data.

Unassessed articles[edit]

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.

Importance parameter[edit]

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.

Task force parameter[edit]

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.

Quality scale[edit]

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, C, 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, GA and B.

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 A-class in terms of completeness, it again must at least be B-class. Note that an A-class complete article may not necessarily meet FA or 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-Class article 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 wording, style, format, layout, citations or supporting materials 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
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:
  • coverage and accuracy
  • use of English
  • structure
  • navigation
  • references and citations
  • supporting materials

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 may find it incomplete or perhaps too high-level. Nevertheless it has passed the necessary quality checks and its only real failing may be incomplete content. 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
C
{{C-Class}}
The article does at least have the basic quality elements of reasonable content that is non-POV, an acceptable standard of English, a structured format and useful navigation aids. It may be short of citations and/or supporting materials but is otherwise a decent piece of work. Useful to readers looking for a well-structured and reasonably detailed overview of the subject but of limited use to serious students. A subject expert would probably note several gaps. Considerable editing still required including provision of citations and/or supporting materials. C-class articles that attract attention tags other than "expand" must be relegated to Start-class until the tags can be cleared. Category:C-Class cricket articles
Start
{{Start-Class}}
The article lacks quality and has failed at least one of B-Class criteria #1 to #4. It has a reasonable amount of content but it remains weak overall and it may have attracted attention tags. It presents an overview of the subject and has perhaps a number of salient facts. It should have an acceptable, though basic, structure.

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 the B-class criteria and, thereby, fully resolve any 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 subject. Possibly useful to someone who has no knowledge of the subject. At best a brief, informed 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).      

Importance scale[edit]

The criteria used for rating article importance attempt to gauge the probability of the "average" or "typical" reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Therefore, it is the importance of the article to the development of the project that is under consideration. To use an obvious example, it is clearly more important for the project to develop cricket than Cricket Life 2007.

In addition, subjects with current notability or popularity may at times be rated higher than topics which are definably "more important" in the longer term. For example, although 2007 Cricket World Cup has the same long-term 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.

Generally notable topics must not be judged from the perspective of editor demographics but must be rated similarly regardless of the country or region in which they hold said notability. Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience, but which are of high notability elsewhere, must be rated accordingly: e.g., 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. Reserved for articles that are strictly related to the game: rules of the game, key roles, key equipment, federations, etc.
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. Test cricket venues. Teams with international notability. Top-level leagues, awards and competitions. Top-rated world-class players and equivalent managers, umpires, writers, patrons, administrators, etc.
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. First-class cricket venues. Teams with national notability (i.e., first-class). Second-level leagues, awards and competitions. Players that have participated at international level or in a top-level competition; and equivalent managers, umpires, writers, patrons, administrators, etc.
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. Any other player, manager or team. Cricket-related lists, season articles, etc. Minor competitions, clubs, venues, etc.
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.
unknown not assessed This article is of unknown importance to this project. It remains to be assessed. It is likely that the article is a stub and so contains insufficient information for an assessment to be made.

Importance standards[edit]

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 as objectively as possible 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 are articles that have been developed separately for reasons such as space or presentation but are essentially part of the key topic: e.g., Laws of cricket, History of cricket, batsman, bowler, wicket, cricket ball, etc. Similarly, important international federations and associations which are or have been key to administering the sport worldwide are of "top" importance.

Biographies and articles about teams pose the problem of subjectivity. It is currently proposed that this WikiProject should follow a precedent set by Wikipedia:WikiProject Football that articles about globally renowned teams, competitions and individuals are limited to "high" importance. This proposal is under review but ratings have been altered accordingly for the present.

Before a team or individual can be granted a high importance rating, some measurably objective reason must be provided, preferably on the article's talk page. Good benchmarks for objectivity in the case of a player are his membership of one of Wisden's greatest player selections, such as Wisden Cricketers of the Century or Wisden Leading Cricketer in the World. For teams, a useful benchmark is full ICC membership. In other cases, the breaking of a major cricket record may suffice or alternatively recourse to a recognised and reputable source that clearly states that individual's importance to the sport's history and development. This latter course is more likely to be needed for non-players such as umpires, writers and administrators. The principle extends itself logically to non-biographical articles and it should be relatively easy to justify Bodyline, for example, as a high importance article.

Note that any "top" or "high" rating for an article is subject to approval by a registered assessor and that an assessor may veto the nomination if he/she considers that it is inappropriate, especially if the rating is based on "hero-worship" or another subjective motive.

Here are a few examples to illustrate the concept and the points above (these should not be viewed as inflexible rules; each case must be judged on its individual merit):

  • 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"; major federations and boards of control are also "top" while the rest are "high" to "low", generally depending on ICC membership level
  • Cricket terminology – all are specific topics except if the article is a list or in some other way generic; for example, cricket bat as an essential piece of equipment and dismissal (cricket) as an essential functionality topic must both be "top" while yorker as an optional tactic is "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 a few venues such as Lord's, MCG and The Oval have perhaps exaggerated importance by association with the sport's history and administration; even so, notable Test venues like Trent Bridge must be "high" as "general areas of knowledge" (given their histories), while other other venues may be "mid" or "low" (venues are generic topics, not specific, because of their histories and usages)
  • Non-international first-class clubs and teams – these are also generic topics for historical reasons and must be rated as "high", "mid" or "low" depending on whether they are first-class, second grade (e.g., minor counties in England or grade level in Australia) or a local club respectively. Note that some apparently minor clubs such as Hambledon have major historic associations.
  • Specific events including individual season, tour, series, competition, match or incident reviews must be rated according to their measurable (i.e., by reference to key sources) significance to the subject if a "high" importance rating is proposed. Otherwise, an article about a Test series/tour or a Cricket World Cup tournament should be rated a default "mid"; articles about all other international and first-class competitions should be rated a default "low" (per the football project's precedent).
  • Biographies – exactly as for specific events above as a person must be viewed in specific terms and a measurable significance provided if a "high" rating is proposed. Note that a player does not necessarily have to be a Test player to gain "high" rating.

Requesting an assessment[edit]

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.

Note that requests made under the old style of review have been stored in the new peer review section.

1. David Sales -- Parklands_cobbler (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

2. List of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club seasons -- Parklands_cobbler (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Participants[edit]

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

  1. DaGizza (talk · contribs)
  2. Ansell (talk · contribs)
  3. AMBerry (talk · contribs) - in particular domestic / women's cricket
  4. BlackJack (talk · contribs) - emphatically cricket history; so not too interested in the limited overs era
  5. Harrias (talk · contribs) - trying to get rid of unassessed and 'articles of unknown importance'
  6. Jhall1 (talk · contribs)
  7. Dweller (talk · contribs)
  8. Jim Hardie (talk · contribs)
  9. MrAngy (talk · contribs)
  10. JoeMeas (talk · contribs)
  11. Cricket rules (talk · contribs)

Log[edit]

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.

Frequently asked questions[edit]

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.