Template:Did you know nominations/West Indies cricket team in India in 1983–84
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator.
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
West Indies cricket team in India in 1983–84 edit
Sunil Gavaskar scored his career best 236 in 1983 against West Indies
- ... that both Sunil Gavaskar (pictured) and Kapil Dev had their career best performance during the disastrous West Indies 1983–84 tour of India?
Created by Sarvagyana guru (talk). Self nominated at 04:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC).
·Article is new enough but has only 1034 characters (187 words) of "readable prose size". There is a lot of text but it is mostly in tables which do not count as readable text for the 1500 character minimum requirement. The text also needs some work - "disastrous" is not a neutral term to use to describe a test series in Wikipedia's voice. I find the hook interesting but I follow cricket, and wonder if it would be clear to a non-cricket fan (ie that India lost but two of their great players had career best performances. Maybe something like...
- (ALT1): ... that Indian cricketers Sunil Gavaskar (pictured) and Kapil Dev had their career best performances during the West Indies dominant 1983–84 tour of India?
EdChem (talk) 10:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
General eligibility:
- New enough:
- Long enough:
- Too short, needs 1500 characters of readable text, presently about 1000
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral: - "Disastrous" could be problematic re being overly negative, and some copy edits are needed once the expansion is done
- Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Hook eligibility:
- Cited:
- Interesting: - See above comments
- Other problems: - See above comments
| Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px. |
|---|
|
| QPQ: None required. |
Overall: 
The article will need a second review as I have made hook suggestions. I used Earwig's tool to look for plagiarism issues, which seem to be absent. EdChem (talk) 10:48, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have expanded the article and increased the word count to 1800 (without including spaces) i.e. 337 words (as counted by MS Word). Sarvagyana guru (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- Length is now fine following increase in text, but I still have concerns, including (1) copy edit would be helpful; (2) the article is classed as a Stub, and I am not sure I would move it to 'Start' class with at 8 subheadings having tables only and no prose text; and, (3) another reviewer is needed to decide on my hook comments as I can't declare my own proposal as queue-ready. EdChem (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Jenks. It's def. not a stub, so I've upgraded it. I've made several changes around the Test scorecard section to bring it inline with the cricket project's MOS. I don't think it's DYK ready, but good luck to those who've nominated it and worked on the article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - the hook is ambiguous at best - I read it as suggesting that the West Indies had a disastrous tour, which is clearly not the case. I'd also be concerned that "career best performances" is ambiguous - with Gavankar's name there I assumed that Kapi Dev had also made his highest score. Gavaskar's score is also only his highest test score - that's not clear in the hook (I took it as meaning highest score of any kind). The lead section of the article is also really quite confused - the second paragraph includes all sorts of interesting things but without any form of real organisation - and these are not then returned to in the article itself.
- Arguably there's more interest in the ODI at Srinagar (with regard to the pitch being dug up) or why the series is known as the "Revenge" series - although that's not made clear at all in the article. It also clearly needs copyediting and wikilinking. At present I would argue it relies far too heavily on tabular data and not enough on good writing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
- Since no major contribution or any consensus could be reached in this forum by volunteers and peer contributors, this DYK nomination may be withdrawn. In case anybody else wishes to build upon this nomination they are free to do so.Sarvagyana guru (talk) 02:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Withdrawn by nominator. BlueMoonset (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
