Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Assessment

National teams and world cup assessments
I am rating all national teams, and all past and 2007 world cups as high importance. If anyone disagrees with this feel free to change them. Ans e ll 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I notice that there are a few national teams in top importance, not sure about that but I don't want to change it. Also, I should have said ICC test playing nations for high importance, non-test playing nations are mid importance IMO. Ans e ll  06:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also rating all previous/current national captains as high. Ans e ll  07:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if the balance between team ratings and player ratings is correct? If Test-playing teams' articles have been rated as "high" rather than as "top", then presumably Yorkshire and Barbados and so forth have to be rated one level down, ie "mid" (indeed the West Indies "domestic" f-c teams have been so rated). That seems low in comparison to Test captains and other great cricketers being ranked as "high". (Incidentally, surely not all Test captains should be rated as "high"? How about Chris Cowdrey, for instance? JH (talk page) 21:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Bart King
I have a question about the importance ratings that are included in assessments. The WP:CRIC standards are fairly clear on how to rate importance. They say that National captains are generally classed as high importance, and players with many tests are generally classed as mid to high importance. My pet project is currently Bart King. As an American he played no Tests, and I'm not sure if he ever captained a US national side. However, based on his position as the preeminent American cricketer of all time is there any support for him being upgraded to "High Importance" on the project scale? Thanks a lot.-- Eva  b  d  19:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Table of ratings
The multi-coloured table of article ratings split down by class and importance is very informative, but it needs amending in order to include the new "bottom" rating. JH (talk page) 08:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I now see that BlackJack made the amendment on April 13th, but as soon as the WP 1.0 bot next ran to update the figures in the table the "bottom" column disappeared again. Is it possible to get anything done about this? (I wouldn't know how, myself.) JH (talk page) 19:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Assessment scale
I'd argue that the great communicators on the game are as significant, and as likely to have their articles referred to by people, as the great players, and that at least Cardus - and possibly Arlott too - should be rated "high" rather than "mid". JH (talk page) 21:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fine, John, I'm happy with that. My concern is the number of people, all admittedly good players, who have been designated high importance even though they had no lasting legacy other than having been a good player. There'll always be exceptions and borderlines, of course, and I think it's best to just give them the benefit of the doubt. I'd be more than happy to reinstate Arlott and Cardus (another is Benaud). Thanks for the feedback. Jack | talk page 14:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Do you find it odd that the article "Cricket" itself is still categorized "start class" while so much time and effort go into articles that are only "Cricket-related" and that have "higher" status? 18:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.60 (talk)

Cricket "start class" status...
How can the article for Cricket itself still be considered "start class" when so many other Cricket-related articles are classified "above" it? 18:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Changes to importance ratings
Does anyone object to me re-writing this now that affiliate membership has gone? Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * and whilst I'm at it, should the World Test Championship be on a similar footing to World Cups (default to mid)? Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)