Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cricket World Cup

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

Cricket World Cup edit

This article has undergone massive renovations to bring it up to scratch with the likes of FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup. See first PR, failed FAC, second PR. It is a GA. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support(partial contributor). This article meets the criteria and it's a really important sports related article.--Thugchildz
  • Object For now because it is almost there. Tournament and Media coverage sections need exspanding. The "Performance of teams" section looks a bit odd stuck between two tables. The lead infobox should only have the current champion. A lot of original reserch. Buc 22:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point out the occurences of original research so that we can fix them. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    what else is there to do? the tournament and media coverage have been expanded, the tables are the same way for the fifa world cup and thats a FA, and you still have not pointed out orginal research.
  • Object (for this state:[1]). The article looks good, but I still have some comments below. (Note: please don't mix your replies/answers/comments on my comment below as it will confuse who said which. The darkred fonts were copy-pasted from the article.)
    1. Please complete all fair use rationale of all fair use images used in this article. Some fair use images, esp. logos, have high resolution. Its size should be reduced, per WP:FAIR.
    2. I'm not really good at compelling prose criterion, but the following sentences do not have a good flow. The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England. Cricket was included as a sport at the 1900 Summer Olympics, where Great Britain defeated France in the final to win the gold medal. Cricket was not included in subsequent summer olympics. The next international cricket competition was the 1912 Triangular Tournament. They just look like bulleted items presented in a paragraph. No conjunction words and there is big gap between sentences.
    3. I'm not also good at grammar, but this is the first time I read the word "while" is used strangely without a complete sentence. Here they are: Non-Test playing teams from the last World Cup automatically qualifies for the Qualifier. While, the next best ranked teams are seeded in division two and division three. From division three, two teams are promoted to division two. From that, four teams qualify for the World Cup Qualifier. While the others are still in contention. (see the bold part). Also, it confuses me to read "From that". Which "that" is it? the division three or the division two?
    4. Again with the cutoff half-clauses (main and subordinate into two sentences) like these: The top two teams from division five then moves up to division four. From which, the top two teams are promoted to division three (second edition).
    5. Could you just draw a graph to show how the qualification process works, rather than confusing sentences of "from that", "from which" and other "from..." ?
    6. The television distribution rights to the 2007 Cricket World Cup have been sold to EchoStar Communications Corporation, which will be broadcasting to viewers from countries around the world, including an estimated 12 million viewers in the United States, which is a non-cricket playing nation. (too many "which"es)
    7. The number of references is a bit thin, compared to the article size. Some sentences need inline citations, for instance:
      • The first cricket Test match was played in 1877 between Australia and England.
      • Australia won the championship by defeating England by 7 runs, the closest margin ever in World Cup final history.
      • ...,were awarded victory by default after riots broke out in protest against the Indian performance.
      • The 1999 event was held in England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland and Netherlands.
      • In 2009 the name "ICC Trophy" will be changed to "ICC World Cup Qualifier".
      • The 2007 Cricket World Cup will feature 16 teams allocated into four groups of four.
      • There is still room for another ten teams to have their name inscribed.
      • The tournament today is one of the world’s largest and most viewed sporting events. (I don't believe this. Compare to the FIFA World Cup?)
    8. Now let's look at the current references:
      • 2. ^ Cricket World Cup PDF → please complete this.
      • 3. ^ a b Ruthless Aussies lift World Cup. bbc.co.uk. Retrieved on 29 August 2006 → when did this news appear?
      • 17. ^ Wisden Cricketers Almanack 2004 → what is this? book? newspaper? who is the publisher?
      • 18. ^ ICC Cricket World Cup Anti-infringement programme → infringement? It's only FAQs. Which one is it?
      • Ref. 18 & 19 link to the same place, but they give different citations.
      • For all citation to news, please provide also when the news appeared. It's not informative to state only when you accessed it.
    9. Numerous sponsorship deals have been made for each of the World Cups, for example, the sponsors for the 2007 Cricket World Cup include LG Electronics, Pepsi, Hutch, Hero Honda, Indian Oil, Scotiabank and Visa. Of course, all modern sport events now have sponsors. I don't think spelling out sponsors for a tournament is an encyclopaedic terms.
    10. In the "See Also" section, there are two wikilinks: "International cricket in 2006-07" and "International cricket in 2007". Why are they different?
— Indon (reply) — 23:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment all objections have been addressed and explained to the users who objected;here & here--Thugchildz

(Moved from my talk page, please address all concerns about this article's review here. Please don't put them in my talk page, okay?) — Indon (reply) — 08:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hello, thank you for pointiing out the things that needs to be improved on the article. Right now most of you ojections for the article's FA have been addressed so can you please strike out you objection and comments (with <del>...</del>).

Edit:i found out im not supposed to do that so sorry about that.--Thugchildz

Response I know how to strike, but I don't like striking reviews. It's awful to read strikes in a review. I will only strike my oppose vote later after running a second look. — Indon (reply) — 08:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second look. I'm still opposing it after a glance look again to the page. Take one example, ^ Book:Wisden Cricketers Almanack 2004. Is this a good way of citing a source? Please read examples in WP:CITET and then you know why. (Note: WP:CITET is not mandatory but it is a good place to see what minimal parameters for a citation to be informative.)) — Indon (reply) — 15:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
it has a better source now--Thugchildz
  • Comment some images still lack fair use rationales. Also, the refs need to be completed with authors, dates (and pages for the PDF files), for example, ref no. 3 has an update date, but isn't cited; ref no. 7 also names the author but it isn't cited either. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 06:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    what do you mean by ref no.3 abd 7 not being cited? also all of them are complete with authors and the dates, plus PDF have now the page no. and plus as said above WP:CITET is not mandatory--Thugchildz
    I mind, this source names the author and the publication date (Martin Williamson / April 30, 2005), if you cite that source as a reference, you've got to include all the information, it doesn't matter if you're using a citation template or not. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CITET does not say you have to include all the info. it only says that the bold ones are required and plus those templates don't even have to be used, so i dont think its mandatory include every single info about the source. may be i am wrong but not that i know of--Thugchildz
    The bold parameters in WP:CITET are required for the template to work. If you don't use the "title", or the "url" parameter, the ref will show an error. Read Wikipedia:Citing_sources and Wikipedia:Citing_sources/example_style. No-Bullet (Talk • Contribs) 02:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is not directly related to the article. I use a widescreen display and the "Infobox Cricket Tournaments" is grossly oversized in that format, i.e. I think its default size should be set so that its the same size in a 4:3 or widescreen display - just big enough to hold all the information. As it is there are massive empty spaces. Mark83 12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The trophy section of the article has an embedded comment that says <!--Need to add data about the original trophy -->. Is the article complete or incomplete? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's complete that was just left there from before--Thugchildz
  • Support An excellent, well-illustrated, informative article, with a considered, appropriate use of stats (in a stats-crazy sport) - deserving of FA status. --Dweller 15:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I've pooped out better articles than this. --24.235.229.208 21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please sign in and provide some constructive criticism as to why you voted oppose.Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need to sign in to make coments here? Buc 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if you check the history, I didn't strike out his comment, he did it himself, with the edit summary of "vandalism". But I think that if you want your vote to count in the tally, you need to be signed in as this means there can be no sockpuppetry or vote stacking. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm sorry about forgetting to cite everything using proper templates. It's done now. Please point out any other problems and I'll quickly go and fix them, referencing format shouldn't be the factor keeping this away from FA. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 21:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think "Most Successful" "Top run scorer(s)" or "Top wicket taker(s)" are really notable enough to be in the lead infobox. Maybe move them to another part of the article. Also I think the lead image should be either the logo or just the trophy on it's own. Buc 22:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
they are, because cricket is a stats-crazy sport and those are summary of the stats provided in the article--Thugchildz
I think you're right... the leading batsman/bowler need to remain. The "most successful" stat is, however, misleading, as it gives the impression Australia has won 40 world cups. I agree with comments above regarding the image in the info box... perhaps the Australia team image and the trophy image could just swap positions in the otherwise excellent article. --Dweller 23:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
taken care of; the pictures is a issue.--Thugchildz
Not sure what the problem is with the pictures (unless it's a landscape/portrait problem) but the stat is still a bit unhelpful IMHO (although no longer misleading). Surely the reader interested in the most successful side wants to know who's won the most World Cups, not matches? England's win record is pretty decent in terms of matches (joint second best, according to the article)... but they've never won the shiny metal thing. Surely the natural thing to list would be "Australia (1987, 1999, 2003)"? --Dweller 23:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
yeah its lanscape/portrait so the other way looks odd and your right about world cups won not/matches--Thugchildz
  • Support A great article; provides good information, well supported with images and good knowledge about this world cup.--Superplaya 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment i think you have to sign to have it count, right?--Thugchildz
Superplaya (talk · contribs) newly registered user - first edits to WP:FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Having worked on the article I don't wish to support or object it, but I would like to bring out a few problems I have with the article at present.
    1. The infobox for me serves little to no purpose when all of the information quoted in the box is already stated in the introduction right next to it (with the exception of the top run scorer and wicket taker). On top of that I have problems with what is in the infobox: "Time Line" should be read as timeline and "round robin, super sixes and knockout" should not be capitalised. "Total participants" is misleading - this could mean a number of things and is ambiguous even to a reader familiar with the topic. But all of that said, I still believe it should be removed altogether and would like to hear the thoughts of other editors about this one.
    2. I have major issues with the use of some images. I fail to see the purpose of the inclusion of the 2007 Mascot under "Media coverage" and the use of Clide Lloyd's photo with the number 75 stuck on. The Trophy image should be used as the lead picture instead of the picture of the Australian team. The topic in question is the Cricket World Cup, not the Cricket World Cup champions.
    3. The article has a few factual errors. Instantly when I read the introduction I see that a "Super 6" stage is one of the tournament stages. This is incorrect, as the upcoming tournament will have a "Super 8" round robin stage.
    4. I don't see the purpose of "Process summary in chronological order" of qualification. Maybe it's just me, but I think it goes into too much depth.

That was just to point out a few major issues. I don't think this article is ready to be featured just yet. --mdmanser 02:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for enlightening us, will take these to account. also super 6 will be changed to super 8 when it happens, not before. the mascot is related and Clide Lloyd's picture is for the 1st world cup and is fine with fair use as it's not better than it would be printed from original copy, that said it belongs to represent the 1st ever world cup; you cant expect pictures back to the same as picture of later on. chronological order is what the explains it best. these have already been addressed and/or discussed in the peer reveiw--Thugchildz
also on the other hand the topic is the cricket world cup not cricket world cup trophy, so what makes the tournament- world cup- the trophy or the people?--Thugchildz
It's up to you whether you want "Super 8" or "Super 6" in the article, but whichever it is, the wording needs to be changed accordingly. "Nowadays" implies the present; Super 6 is no longer used. Also, let's get opinions from other editors about whether the infobox should stay or go. Peer review is much less critical than this stage (as I've learned before) and it would be smart to address all possible concerns now rather than in 2 weeks. --mdmanser 02:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
fair enough--Thugchildz
  • Comments. Why are the news report citation not reporting the date of publishing of the news? Without them, citations look incomplete. Also, I think that the "format" in the infobox is highly misleading. Any reader who reads it now would most likely be interested in the format in place, not the one outdated. For a casual reader who came to the page to confirm how the format would be like would be misled by the infobox that it would involve a super six. While it is true that until the event takes place, super eight would never be in place, but it is equally true that super six is is no longer in use. I think we should mention the latest format decided by the ICC, and make a footnote saying that the event with this format is yet to take place. Also, the world cup tournament isn't an everyday phenomenon, so writing "nowadays" in the lead is highly misleading. Also, it reinstates the view that the upcoming world cup would follow the super six format. Now, regarding the image to be placed in the lead, there could have been a possibility of a debate if there were two possible images. However, as I noted on the article talk page, the Aussie cricket team image violates the fair use criteria since a free replacement of the world cup's image is available. It needs to go and the trophy's image needs to be put in its place. Regarding the "Participants" in infobox, it is not clear what "from 97 entrants" mean. By standard dictionary definition, entrant is a synonym of participant. How are they different? — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Like most world cups in sport, many countries fail to qualify for the finals tournament. --Dweller 06:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew that all along. What I was trying to say is that a reader not knowing it would get confused. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    as said above entrants are the teams that tried but failed to make it to the final 16 for the final tournament. picture is not a replacement because it trophy alone doesn't show australia with the trophy does it? so its not a vio for fair use criteria. also the citation is a only big issue now and it would be great if anyone could solve it--Thugchildz
    Why do you think it is important to show Australia with the cup? I don't think that provides any additional information. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Super Six to Super Eight change has been made. I'm not sure about the image placement in the lead but neither do I really care which image ends up there. If people really want to get rid of the Australian win image then we can do so. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I request other editors to assess the issue of fair use claim of the image. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 08:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As much as I'm a cricket fan, I'll have to Object per 1(a), the prose doesnt really seem that compelling, with some redundant terms in there (eg. The number of teams getting selected through the ICC Trophy has varied from event to event. Currently, it selects six teams for the Cricket World Cup.) just to point out one. (Referencing in concerned section has been done --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC))The Performance of teams section could do with some references per 1(c). --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Further to that, the tournament format could be referenced, especially the Super 6 stage, cause its unclear whether the Super 6 format may continue into WC 2007. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 23:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I personally disagree with Super 6 and Super 8 being separate articles (as both can change over time as the WC expands and more associate nations eg Canada.. (go Asish Bagai!) have to qualify to participate in expanded World Cups). All concerns have been addressed, and will be more than happy enough to Support. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support good article, easy to understand for the most part, but thats because i don't know much about cricket--Kbk1 22:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Above user's first edit Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The infobox is unnecessary and rebundant. Most of the information could be found easily in the lead or in respective sections (the statstics section at the end). So what is its use? CG 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    it was answered already "I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]
    --Thugchildz
  • CG, discussion on the infobox is on the article's talk page. You will notice that I supported the removal and I still do despite Thugchildz's and Noble's arguments. However, I don't mind if it stays especially after it has undergone a bit of renovating and no longer misleads the reader in any way. GizzaChat © 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    can anyone check and strike out the objections that's been addressed; that would be most of them I think.--Thugchildz
  • Suggestion. Is it worth putting this bid on hold till after the 2007 tournament? Buc 14:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No WikiProject Cricket wants it to be FA in time for 2007 tournament--Thugchildz
    But the article will have to be notably changed during and after the tournament. So even if it's a FA now it may not be after the 2007 tournament. Buc 09:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, 2007 Cricket World Cup would change a lot, but this is just general phenomena and past history, not sport details. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it wouldn't. Everything would just be updated. It deserves FA now. Every article changes but they don't wait arround for it to not change when nominating it and plus that's whay FA review is for. It wouldn't change much anyway because all the things are up to date and so there would just be little things updated or added. At the moment it deserves FA, we can't wait around to see if it will FA in the future or not; no article can. And it would still be a FA most likely. that's just a rubbish--Thugchildz
  • The editors must be wondering why so many people have commented, yet so few have supported the article. In my opinion, this is because the article's language is not up to the mark to become an FA. I request the editors to find someone with good English to copyedit the article. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not wondering......(I'm not the author of the page), but yeah, the reviewers aren't impressed and they know the FAC isn't "winning" at this stage, so they don't really have any reason to drop by for a while. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the biggest obstacle in the article is the mediocre standard of prose. As one of the major contributers to the article, I'll be too "attached" to it if I try copediting. So can you suggest anyone (probably two or three people) willing to copyedit the article? GizzaChat © 04:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think Nichalp would be an ideal person to copyedit the article. Not only is he good at copyediting, he also understands the topic well in depth. So he will also be able to provide inputs on comprehensiveness. Thugchildz has asked for his help, let's see what comes of it. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 13:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I have finally got around to doing a full end-to-end copyedit. Another pass from a second editor may be a good idea, but this it very good. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'd support this article per the nomination listed. I think that it is a great treatment of an important topic.--Eva bd 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very close to support now. They thing bugging me is that maybe the "Awards" section could put into a table. Buc 11:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    that could be done but would be too many tables...also the section explaining why they got the award might get messy--Thugchildz
    Well I've added it in. Looks fine to me. Buc 09:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another issues with the wording. Thugchildz says that saying "tornament" all the time is "boring". I wouldn't have thought how boring an article is would matter, it's designed to infom not entertain. I would also say sticking to the same wording in more encyclopedic but I'm not really bothered. Anyone eles got a preference either way? Buc 21:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No it has to be both informative and interesting at the same time. A well written article is never boring.--Thugchildz
  • Question Last night I made a new infobox for the page which was later reverted and somewhat incorporated into the original by Thugzchild. The difference between the two different versions can be seen here and here. I've removed some of the entries from the infobox which are very ambiguous and technically incorrect (there have been more than 97 participants). Given that there have been numerous ways of tournament formatting I simple changed the infobox to read "multiple (see article)". Which version should be used? --mdmanser 00:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well first off, I don't see why there's need to be two different infoboxes that basically does the same thing. Right now the orinal version doesn't have anything ambigous and technically incorrect. There cant be more than 97 because if your not a ICC member you can't qualify for the tournment. The format of the tournament goes by the current format, "multiple" imo is ambiguous. Also some of the better things were incorporated into the orinal one because the original one is used by other articles as well so why does there need to be two infoboxes when the orinal one can do the same thing?--Thugchildz
  • Support Everything looks good now. Buc 11:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would like the history to be more comprehensive and informative, but it has been cut down before. I have left some comments on the article's talk page. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The history part is informative I think. 1st it had more details and then some editors said it had excesive trivia and so it was cut down some. It still is has everything without geting into too much details, which should be in the main article- history of the world cup and the specific world cup articles anyway imo--Thugchildz
    I've done so. Hopefully we will have a problem of choice. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the infobox is now admirable, containing a good mix of "top level" info, without digressing into minutiae. The History section is about right too, considering that it links to a main article that deals with the subject exclusively and at length. What else needs to be done before this is passed for FA? --Dweller 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, Dweller just to let you know, you supported the article earlier on! GizzaChat © 11:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the article is near-FA quality, but not there yet. Here are some of the sentences I found that can do with some editing. I am not doing it myself as others may disagree. (Note: quotes italised)
    • The two teams competed regularly for The Ashes, with South Africa being admitted to Test status in 1889. Part of sentence before and after the comma talk about completely different things. Either bring in flow, or break-up into two sentences.
    • The event was not a success, due to lack of public interest and poor weather. "Not a success": There must be better ways to phrase that.
    • In the subsequent years, international Test cricket has been generally been organised as bilateral series: a multilateral Test tournament was not organised again until the quadrangular Asian Test Championship in 1999. I don't see why a colon is used.
    • Starting in 1962 as a four-team knockout competition (known as the Midlands Knock-Out Cup), and Gillette Cup in 1963, one-day cricket grew in popularity, leading to the formation of the national Sunday League in 1969. The Midlands Cup info is an important part of the sentence (not just an additional info), and thus should be outside braces. Also, I think it would be wise to break this sentence as this is very long.
    • The first One-day International event was played on the fifth day of a rain-aborted Test match between England and Australia at Melbourne in 1971, to fill the time available and as compensation for the frustrated crowd. If cricket matches lasting one day were played since 1960s, then how was the first ODI played in 1971. If the operating word is "official", it should be categorically mentioned.

comment interfere one-day cricket means- limited overs cricket it can be both odi or twenty20. odi is different.--Thugchildz

Actually, it's about the difference between matches at international and non international level. The first one day international was in 1971. Twenty20 is a much more recent innovation. --Dweller 12:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • One notable omission was South Africa, who were banned from international cricket due to apartheid. I think South Africa is singular, and the sentence should have "which was".
    • The 1979 World Cup saw the introduction of the ICC Trophy competition to select non-Test playing teams for the World Cup, with Sri Lanka and Canada qualifying. The sentence seems to end abruptly.
    • India, an outsider quoted at 66 to 1 before the competition began, were crowned champions after upsetting the West Indies by 43 runs in the final. A casual reader wouldn't have a clue what this sentence meant. Who is an outsider, and what is meant by quoted?

comment interfere anyone can understand what it meant by outsiders if they can understand english ok--Thugchildz

A better word to use is "underdog." GizzaChat © 08:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 1987 tournament was held in India and Pakistan, the first time the competition has been held outside England. Grammar can be improved.
    • Pakistan overcame a dismal start to emerge as winners, defeating England by 22 runs in the final. Unclear: Dismal start in tournament, or in the final?
    • In the semi-final, Sri Lanka, headed towards a crushing victory over India at Eden Gardens (Calcutta) after their hosts lost eight wickets while scoring 120 runs in pursuit of 254, were awarded victory by default after riots broke out in protest against the Indian performance. Extremely difficult to read. Needs to be simplified. Also, if the location of Eden Garden is mentioned here, why isn't location of Lord's mentioned a few paragraphs above. There should be consistency in prose.
    • In 1999 the event returned to England, with some matches also being held in Scotland, Ireland and the Netherlands. Unnecessary anthropomorphism.
    • In the final, Australia dismissed Pakistan for 132 and then reaching the target in less than 20 overs, with eight wickets in hand. Grammer is serious off-track.
    • Kenya's victories, including wins against Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe, and a forfeit by the New Zealand team, which refused to play in Kenya due to security reasons, enabled Kenya to reach the semi finals, where they lost to India. Without sufficient background of significance, this sentence seems completely avoidable. In other words, of the four semi-finalists, why is Kenya singled out for mention. The significance finds mention many sections below under "Performance of teams".
    • In the final, Australia made 359 runs for the loss of two wickets, the largest ever total in a final, to defeat India by 125 runs. Should mention "World Cup final" for clarity. Also, usage of word "final" throughout the article needs to be thought-out because the next paragraph has a sentence like The Test-playing nations and ODI-playing nations qualify automatically for the the World Cup finals.

comment interfere if without sufficient background a person can understand what it meant by winning the world cup, while the finals mean the main tournament. --Thugchildz

    • Currently, six teams are selected for the Cricket World Cup. Should rather start with "For the 200x world cup" to clarify if currently mean 2003 or 2007 world cup.

comment interferecurrently means the current system so no need for it.--Thugchildz

    • The teams were split into two pools, with the top three teams in each pool advancing to the "Super 6" stage, with all six teams playing each other once. Avoid two "with"s.
    • As they advanced, they would also carry their points forward from previous matches against the teams advancing alongside them, giving the teams an incentive to perform well in the group stages. Language can be improved.
    • Teams will earn points for wins and half-points for ties. How many points for win? If one, use "a point" (singular usage).

comment interfere points mean more than 1 and it chances from tournament to trounament how manny points are earn so it simply says it earns points- which works for all of them.--Thugchildz

    • The current trophy was created for the 1999 championships, and was the first permanent prize in the tournament's history; prior to this, different trophies were made for each World Cup. Why use semi-colon where a full-stop would do.
    • Television rights, mainly for the 2011 and 2015 World Cup, were sold for over US$1.1 billion, and sponsorship rights were sold for a further US$500 million. The sentence will be highly misleading if "mainly" is not explained. What else did it constitute?

comment interfere how is it misleading?--Thugchildz

    • Previously, only Man of the Match awards were given in individual matches, although it was considered a particularly good achievement to be Man of the Match in the final, as this generally indicated the player who played the biggest part in winning the World Cup final. Too long sentence.
  • In addition to these, the article has additional issues. The first paragraph of "selection of hosts" section is a repeat of things that are already covered in other sections. Why is "Performance of teams" a sub-section of "Summary". The word "Summary" is mis-leading. If you mean the sub-section is a summary of the performance of teams, it is a no-brainer, as articles are meant for summaries. Also, use of geocities.com pages is strictly forbidden as reference. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment Selection of host explains how things works/worked and explains them. Sumarry isn't misleading as it summarizes the past results of the world cups and performace of the teams.--Thugchildz

  • I've made some amends to the section headers, including compiling one section with all of the Statistical summaries in it and tightening up some of the titling used to more accurately reflect what's in the section. I hope there's consensus it's an improvement. Otherwise, happy for someone to revert. --Dweller 09:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support like many underrated sports tournament pages it is informative, neat, and well-constructed. Gets my vote anytime. к1иgf1$н£я5ω1fт 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Book sources need ISBN numbers. Buc 09:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's only on book being used as source and it as the ISBN numder under the reference section as follows: Browning, Mark (1999). A complete history of World Cup Cricket. Kangaroo Press. ISBN 0-7318-0833-9.
    Thanks. This really helps I think. Book references are more reliable. Buc 09:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you aren't supposed to put the full book reference in every time when you refer to different parts of the book, you're supposed to have the books separate as a reference, and have the short noteform for each occurrence on each page. Could you undo it please? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, what happens now? I made some changes on the 14th, but all seems done now. What's the process by which this is either approved or more reasons for denying are given? --Dweller 16:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I now see that more enhancements are continuing. Do the FA rules mean the article can't be considered until these have died away and the article is "stable"? --Dweller 16:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been wondering that. The only thing can suggest is asking Raul. I was surprise this wasn't included in the judgements made yesterday. I asked Raul about it but so far no response. Buc 19:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, stable is generally meant in terms of the content wars and edit wars, not prose smoothing and minor tweaking. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect Raul654 is just letting this run to see if the remaining object (from Indon, I think) and other comments can be dealt with. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is messy and it's difficult to work out what's outstanding. Is the outstanding query from Indon about the 2006/7 and 2007 issue? If so, there's a difference between the two (hence the two articles existing). The latter deals with cricket played in a specific calendar year. The other deals with events during the Northern hemisphere winter - it's a traditional and useful naming system utilised by cricket books and journals. --Dweller 13:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main negative comment now seems to be from Arnzy, but a few comments from others. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the late reply, got stuck with real life domain. I stroke my objection as it is non relevant now after so much discussions and revisions. So my vote is abstain in this nomination. — Indon (reply) — 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Image:Image-WCL.jpg is larger than my wallpaper, and Image:Cricket World Cup 2007.png and Image:Icc-cwc2007 mascot.jpg are also to big to be used under fair use. Shrink them and tag them with {{fair use reduced}}. All three also lack detailed fair use rationales. ShadowHalo 02:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If I'm not mistaken they(pictures mentioned above) are all logos from the icc and is for the world cup. The size doesn't need to be reduced. And logo's doesn't need detailed fair use rationales.--Thugchildz
    The only case I can think of when it may be acceptable to use a higher resolution image is when we have explicit permission to use the high resolution version. Logos are no exception to Wikipedia:Fair use. ShadowHalo 04:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe ShadowHalo has now uploaded low-res versions - can this objection be struck out now? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they still need fair use rationales. ShadowHalo 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support everything sourced now. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets all the criteria. I enjoyed reading this article and congratulate the editors involved. —Moondyne 06:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As one of the major contributers initially. The article now satisfies everything on the criteria once the Fair Use images were dealt with. GizzaChat © 06:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like it will get promoted, so probably the next time Raul654 does his inspections of WP:FAC. He seems to do it once a week, every Saturday. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Cricket_World_Cup&oldid=1144396626"