Cricket WikiProject Lead article talk Portal talk Root category talk Main project page talk  → Featured material  → Notability guidelines (List of notable competitions & matches)  → 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 Project organisation Members talk Awards talk Project banner talk Project category talk Templates Infoboxes  → Cricketer biography infobox talk  → Cricket team infobox talk Studies General topics  → Administration talk  → Awards and rankings talk  → Competitions talk  → Controversies talk  → Culture talk  → Equipment talk  → Forms of cricket talk  → Grounds talk  → Laws of cricket talk  → Records and statistics talk  → Scoring talk  → Skills talk  → Terminology talk  → Women's cricket talk  → Cricket by year talk Biographies  → Don Bradman talk  → W. G. Grace talk Cricket teams  → England talk  → Hambledon Club talk  → West Indies talk  → Yorkshire CCC talk Cricket by country  → Australia talk  → Bangladesh talk  → England talk  → India talk  → New Zealand talk  → Pakistan talk  → Nepal talk  → South Africa talk  → Sri Lanka talk  → United States talk  → West Indies talk History of cricket  → Australia talk  → Bangladesh talk  → England talk  → India talk  → New Zealand talk  → Pakistan talk  → South Africa talk  → Sri Lanka talk  → United States talk  → West Indies talk edit · changes

At 6,848,871 articles and counting, Wikipedia's content grows every day. The Cricket WikiProject covers some 47,000 articles which include a number of featured articles, featured lists, featured topics, and good articles.

One of our most challenging goals, and one that will become increasingly important as content continues to grow, is that of article improvement. Reviewing articles is an integral part of this quality process, and can be an excellent way to help drive up the standard of our encyclopedia, to meet and work with some of our best editors, to improve your own writing and technical skills, and to recognise the work of our article builders, without whom our endeavour would come to nothing.

Wikipedia's review processes[edit]

Wikipedia uses a number of methods of varying rigour to assess article quality. These can be broadly divided into three groups:

WikiProject assessments are based on a project's quality scale; the CRIC scale can be found here. Other project scales differ, although all are historically based on the Version 1.0 original. The Cricket Project uses all assessment levels, but there are some differences in emphasis at each grade. Most grades on the CRIC scale can be assigned by an individual reviewer, although in keeping with other projects and the demanding requirements of the grades, GA-Class and FA-class require a community assessment.

Community assessments are those conducted outside the project by encyclopedia-wide review mechanisms. Currently Wikipedia operates two: the good article and featured content processes. Good articles and topics are sometimes informally characterised as those that meet a minimum quality standard for inclusion in a serious encyclopedia, and inhabit an ill-defined area somewhere around the B/A-Class boundary. Featured content—which may be articles, lists, pictures, portals or topics—is considered to be our very best, and featured status supersedes all other rankings. Good status is awarded by individual reviewers via the GA review process, while promotion to featured status requires a consensus among multiple reviewers during a featured article candidacy.

Peer reviews, unlike the other processes, assign no class or status to an article. Instead they are a way for writers to get feedback and advice on improving their work, and are often undertaken before submitting an article to a more demanding assessment, such as good article or featured article candidacy. Peer reviews can be found at the Wikipedia-wide peer review page. Peer review is not be confused with Request for comment (RfC) process. Peer reviews are intended to improve articles in terms quality and content, whereas RfC is used to resolve a long standing, probably controversial issue related to an article or some other aspect of the project, through establishing consensus.

Finding articles to review[edit]

CRIC's clearing house for article reviews is our assessment department. Here you will find our article quality scale, some answers to commonly-asked questions, statistics on the articles we deal with, and links to related pages. We manage our project's Stub to B-Class assessment work from this page. The unassessed cricket articles link will take you to an automatically-generated list of all articles that have had our project banner added to their talk pages but have not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale. A related location is the requests for assessment section, which contains Stub to B-Class articles that (usually due to improvements) have been nominated for a reappraisal.

In addition to CRIC's assessment processes, editors may be interested in the peer review process, which is separate to the project, and has the added benefit of having eyes from outside our field review articles, adding a fresh outside perspective. More information about this process is listed below.

Suggestions

Category