Talk:2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 final/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Final/GA1)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Matt294069 in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Matt294069 (talk · contribs) 01:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Comments edit
So I will be looking through this article to see if this worthy of an Good article. Not Homura (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Lead edit
- The 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 final was a Women's Twenty20 International cricket match... - capital for the Final and as we already know that its a T20 International, that bit can be removed.
- Capitalised "Final", but left the link to Women's Twenty20 International, as that is an official classification. Harrias talk 10:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- World Twenty20 – Australia have won on each occasion. - Change each to both and have to has, and maybe add the years that they played in the final.
- Changed each to both: left it as "have" for the moment, this might be a MOS:ENGVAR issue, and I want to check into it. Added the years. Harrias talk 10:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- In their chase, Alyssa Healy scored quickly early on, but Australia lost two wickets to fall to 44 for two. Lanning and Gardner then took over and a score of 33 not out from the latter helped Australia to victory by eight wickets. - These sentences need to be worked on as it doesn't flow.
Route to the final edit
Group stage edit
Australia path edit
- Against Ireland in their second match, - Move the Against Ireland to end of that little section so it says, In their second match against Ireland,
- In reply, Healy scored the fastest half-century in Women's World Twenty20 history, and the second-fastest in all women's Twenty20 Internationals, taking 21 balls to reach her fifty. - Needs a reference here
- Australia chased down their target with more than half of the innings remaining, to win by nine wickets. - Change "the innings" to "their overs".
- Australia's opening batters proved strong again in their third match of the tournament; the pair put on 71 runs together before Mooney was dismissed - Maybe change it to "After an opening partnership of 71 in the third match of the group against New Zealand..." or something similar along those lines.
- Alex Malcolm described that New Zealand had managed to "expose some vulnerabilities in the powerful Australian line-up" - Needs a reference here and also who is Alex Malcolm
- The Indians batted first, and scores of 83 from Smriti Mandhana and 43 from Harmanpreet Kaur propelled them to a score of 167 for eight. - Change to this to "The Indians batted first and scored 167 for eight with Smriti Mandahana scoring 83." or something similar to remove the two ands in this sentence.
- Late in the India innings, Healy and Schutt collided, resulting in a mild concussion for Healy which meant that she was not able to bat during Australia's innings. - Reference
- but against a spin-bowling dominated bowling attack, - remove the first bowling to make it "but against a spin dominated bowling attack,
- Ellyse Perry top-scored for Australia with 39 runs, - Remove for Australia
- ...but economical bowling from Anuja Patil and Radha Yadav in particular saw Australia bowled out for 119, their first loss of the competition. - Remove the "in particular" in this sentence.
England path edit
- England were placed in Group A, alongside Bangladesh, South Africa, Sri Lanka and West Indies. - Reference needed
- lost both their openers - Remove their
- Missing something about their revised total in the match against Bangladesh
- while Anya Shrubsole also took three wickets, conceding 11 runs - Seems to me that their is no mention of the hat-trick in that game.
- The final match of the group stage, against the West Indies, determined which team would finish top of the group, and face Australia. - Possible reference here?
- England batted first, but lost - Remove the comma
- described as "a meagre total" by ESPNcricinfo's Alan Gardner. - Reference needed
- with three balls of the innings remaining - Remove "of the innings".
Semi final edit
- Australia faced the West Indies in the first of the semi-finals, which were played as a double-header. - Maybe a reference stating that it was a double header
- scored 46 runs quicker than a-run-a-ball, - change it "at more than" and also lose the comma here.
Build up edit
- favourites coming into the tournament; ESPNcricinfo, Sky Sports, Fox Sports, and The Guardian all rated them as such - You properly don't need that entire list of such websites to state that claim. Just some references only for those links.
Match edit
Summary edit
- spin bowling of Sophie Molineux, - "spin bowler, Sophie Molineux" instead of what was said here
- following over following a direct hit by Georgia Wareham - change following to by and change the by to the from so its says "following over by a direct hit from Georgia Wareham at midwicket"
- in the second over, bowled by Shrubsole, Healy hit three boundaries. She continued to score quickly, but was bowled by Ecclestone in the fifth over for 22. - This whole area can be replaced by just doing "with Healy hitting four boundaries in the opening overs before being bowled by Ecclestone in the fifth over for 22." or something along those lines
Scorecard edit
No problems with that
Aftermath edit
- ICC Women's Twenty20 International Player of the Year needs to be linked to ICC Women's Cricketer of the Year.
Final comments edit
@Harrias: Personally I feel like their is a little too much going on during the English side of the innings as their is eight lines of text in the English innings compared to only three in the Australian innings so maybe try and shrink the summary for the English innings or expand the Australian innings in the summary. Another thing I noticed throughout reading this was the use of the cricinfo a lot throughout the Route to the final paths, maybe try and expand on finding some sources from outside of that website. Other than that, just need to fix those things and it would be good to go as a GA. Not Homura (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Matt294069: I understand your comment about the imbalance of the innings, but the more I read through it, and the sources, the more it becomes apparent to me that it simply reflects the balance of the match. The England innings went on for longer, had more wickets, and more other chances. In contrast, the Australians more or less breezed to victory, only losing two, rather than ten, wickets. I could probably cut a little from the first innings, and pad a little in the second, but I personally think that either would be detrimental to the article? Harrias talk 13:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Harrias: Looking at that section in particular, I see where you are coming from as Australia did breeze towards the win and maybe cutting a bit from the English side of the page might be partially detrimental for the article. It could be possible that the Australian part might need a little more padding but the problem would be in what would way to expand that section. Matt294069 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Harrias: Any update on doing those modifications as it has been seven days since I have reviewed the article and just wanting to know what is going on. Thanks. Matt294069 (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, completely missed this. We're away on holiday until the 12th, but I'll see what I can do. Harrias talk 19:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- That is fine, sometimes an holiday is good to clear the brain from any negative thoughts. Matt294069 (talk) 04:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, completely missed this. We're away on holiday until the 12th, but I'll see what I can do. Harrias talk 19:44, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
- Just one comment from me: Handy to link to the first use of some of the cricket terminology (if there's an article for it), as it might be obvious to those who follow the sport to what they are, it won't be for others. I've done this in the lead for a couple of words (toss, over, etc). I did this on the article I worked on last year to get to a GA. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- Ah thanks for that, I will think about that for future GA reviews that is similar to this. Matt294069 (talk) 01:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
@Matt294069: I've been through your comments and addressed each; let me know any further input you might have. Harrias talk 10:44, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me, here is your GA. Matt294069 (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.