![]() | Cricket Project‑class | |||||||||||
|
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. Ansell 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
Does anyone object to me re-writing this now that affiliate membership has gone? Spike 'em ( talk) 09:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | Cricket Project‑class | |||||||||||
|
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. Ansell 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
Does anyone object to me re-writing this now that affiliate membership has gone? Spike 'em ( talk) 09:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC)