 | This page is part of the Cricket WikiProject's online Nets, and contains instructions, recommendations, or suggestions for editors working on cricket articles. While it is not one of the project's formal guidelines, editors are encouraged to consider the advice presented here in the course of their editing work. |
| WikiProject Cricket |
|---|
 |
Lead article (talk) Portal (talk) •  Root category (talk) |
| Cricket templates |
| Cricket studies |
Improving articles is an endless task on Wikipedia. No matter how well-written an article or how thorough its coverage of the subject, there will always be something more that can be added, better worded, or sourced. It is in the pursuit of the never-ending goal of reaching and achieving FA-class that articles on Wikipedia are rated on an assessment scale. This scale serves as an anchor for all article improvements. The scale rates articles according to several criteria and assigns them to one of several pre-existing ranks. In improving an article, it is helpful to understand the basic points of the system and what must be achieved for an article to move up to the next level.
All assessments on Wikipedia are, at their heart, attempts to communicate article quality to the 1.0 assessment team. This team is responsible for selecting articles for inclusion in offline releases of Wikipedia. In their attempts to select articles of outstanding quality, they have asked that articles be rated on a system from Stub to Featured, to better gauge what kind of articles they are receiving. The team has occasionally amended their criteria but the basics of the assessment chart remain the same.
Assessment is a point of pride for the Cricket Project and wish to be considered a project which has high standards for article assessments. Fostering this reputation inspires our members to demand high standards to ensure the articles which move up on the scale are worthy of their new rank. The highest rankings apply to a relatively small proportion of our articles: those held to be GA-class or better. Most of our articles rate at or below B-class. They are in need of improvement to bring them up to the higher assessment levels needed for offline release. For this purpose, the rankings, their simplified definitions, and the means by which the criteria can be improved are listed below.