Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Destubbing miniproject

Mini-project: de-tagging cricket stubs
Many cricket articles are incorrectly tagged as stubs. The aim of this mini-project is to detag those articles by viewing each one and making an assessment of whether the tag can be removed. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket for background.)

To prevent doubling up, select a group and add your signature ( ~ ) in the third column when you're ready to start. On completion of the category, strike out the first column name using ... and add a done tag. When the category is complete, update the 4th column with the number of articles now remaining.

Instructions

 * 1) Open the article and assess according to guidelines at assessment department guidelines
 * 2) If appropriate, remove the stub tag from the article
 * 3) Tag the article talk page with the project tag:   (or as appropriate)

Bloody Pipelines
Got one in me signature. My God, it caused me some bother there. --BlackJack | talk page 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be happy to take on a category when I've knocked off the rest of the Yorkshire team in three or four days. I'll do one of the unfashionable ones like Bangladesh if you like Moondyne. You can put my name on that section, or whatever one you think needs doing, if you like and I'll get on it ASAP. Nick mallory 02:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Expansion of instructions
What do and do we not consider a stub? I've gone through A-I of the South African stubs and removed the obvious ones, but things like Ahmed Amla - next to no information, no infobox, etc, but at the same time he has minimal significance. Compare to, say, Alfonso Thomas which has a small amount of information but no infobox - should the latter be start and the former be stub? Is it just a case of comparing how significant they are? I'm not entirely sure. Cheers. AllynJ 18:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold. No-ones going to bite your head off if you're making good faith efforts with assessments.  Borderline ones should probably be left as stubs, because that's one of the purposes of the stub tag; to give the next editor a target list of articles to improve.  IMO, Amla is a stub and Thomas borderline as I can't see a need for a lot more prose.  Perhaps with the infobox missing he should stay as Stub, else he'd go to Start.  Adam Dale is about the same size as Thomas but he has an infobox.  However he's played in two Tests so should be expanded - I'll leave him as stub.
 * I feel that I've read and an essay somewhere here that discusses low importance articles and them not needing to be too big. Trivia is the closest I can find but if someone else knows of it please post a link. &mdash;Moondyne 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * After doing a few, here's my criteria for Start-class or better:
 * Player articles must have a completed cricketers infobox and all relevant categories; and
 * If 0 Tests and ODIs, a minimum of 3 paragraphs (or 6 sentences) of reasonable prose, not lists;
 * If has played in at least one Test or ODI, a minimum of 4 paragraphs (or 8 sentences);
 * If has played in more than 5 Tests or ODI's, a minimum of 6 paragraphs (or 10 sentences).
 * Umpire and other non-player articles must be at least 3 paragraphs (or 6 sentences);
 * This is just my personal guide and I don't follow it religiously. I post it here in case its useful to someone else. &mdash;Moondyne 05:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you, exactly the kind of response I was hoping for. :) AllynJ 06:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The Effect of DEFAULTSORT
I notice that where an article includes a DEFAULTSORT statement (eg DEFAULTSORT:Andrew, Gareth) then the English cricket bio stub template alphabetically orders on the surname instead of on the first name. It's not really a problem, but it means that when looking for a stub it may not be in the place in the alphabetical list that one expects to find it. JH (talk page) 21:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is a stub?
I'm not sure what people are defining as a stub, but I tend to be rather conservative, and like to leave the sub notice in there to remind ourselves that there is quite a long way to go. I have reverted some of AllynJ's destubbings of articles like Johan Botha and a few others, since I don't feel that an article with 1000-1500 characters in the main text should be marked as a non-stub. I used the rollback for brevity, but I do not mean this as an insult. I am happy to undo myself if the consensus is that my conservative definition of a stub is out of order. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the sheer number that have to be reviewed, it is easy for some to slip through. I'm sure a few that I've done are contentious and I wouldn't have a problem in the slightest if someone reverted them back to stubs.  I agree Botha is still a stub but AllynJ is doing a fine job (and I know that you're not saying he's not, but I just wanted to confirm that.) &mdash;Moondyne 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine by me - I did the first half of the South African ones a bit 'blind' so to speak - I did them before I posted the question a few lines up and so wasn't entirely sure where to draw the line. I was a bit loose with a few but I felt if they were well written, even if for a limited amount, about someone non-notable (not notable? Grammar) I would destub them. Quality > quantity, especially when that much isn't required in the first place, etc. etc. Oh, and cheers for the kind words Moondyne. :] AllynJ 03:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think much spends on the subject of the article. If they have played only a single first-class match, then there is unlikely to be much to be said, and three or four sentences, a reference and the appropriate categories may be all that is needed. Whereas for someone like Donald Bradman, then times as much text would still only be a stub. JH (talk page) 08:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

18th Century Players
I've finished going through the 18th century articles and I de-stubbed numerous ones about people as well as some about venues and teams. There are still a few 18th century players whose articles are stubs as I could add more to them, especially statistical information. --BlackJack | talk page 21:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Bangladesh, West Indies, Pakistan
I de-stubbed any Bangladeshi who'd had much work done on them, seeing as few Bangladesh players have substantial records yet, but 80% are still stubs I'm afraid. Some of the ones I destubbed were still a bit scant but the player had a very brief career and we're never going to get a Neville Cardus job on them all. I raised the bar on the West Indian ones and there's some important players there with very short stub articles such as Charlie Griffith, Everton Weekes and Manny Martindale. The Pakistan section is very thin and the few players with longer articles certainly need rewriting for the most part. Nick mallory 09:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've taken the libery of altering your importance rating for George Challenor from low to mid (and was tempted to make it high). He was a very significant figure in the history of West Indian cricket, their first great batsman. There's a parallel with Grace, in that Test cricket came ten years too late for him. JH (talk page) 16:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Report on progress
I'm gradually working my way through the English bio stubs. I've so far completed A and B. As well as destubbing where appropriate, I'm also putting a WP Cricket template on the talk page, with what I hope are appropriate class and importance ratings. I haven't been able to resist making some minor improvements to some of the articles. I reckon I've been able to destub not far short of 50%, either because the player only made one or two appearances for Blankshire, so that there's really very little to be said about him, or because the article is actually quite substantial. In assigning importance ratings, one thing I wasn't quite sure about was how to rate the handful of women cricketers. On the grounds that women's cricket has a lower profile than men's, I've been putting the ratings one level lower than for their male equivalents, so that Jan Brittin - for instance - is rated as mid rather than high. (If I get as far as Rachael Heyhoe-Flint, I think she will have to be high, though.) JH (talk page) 19:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)