Comments
- " typically August to August" you need to run that by me again! Do you mean "the calendar year from August to July"?
- If only it were that simple. It runs from a specific date in August to a specific date the following August, but oddly, the specific dates seem to vary each year: "August 11, 2010 - August 3, 2011" for Stafanie Taylor, but "24 August 2009 to 10 August 2010" for Shelley Nitschke. I assume it is done so that it doesn't stop midway through a series or tournament possibly? Hence why I've had to say August to August! If you can think of a better way of phrasing it I would be grateful! Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Have rephrased this slightly based upon your suggestion, how is it now? Harrias talk 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Uhmm. Apparently not. I wrote something really smart sounding too, and can't remember it now. I've put your suggestion in ad verbatim. If I remember what I put before, I might change it to that again (and it may notice this time.) Strange. Harrias talk 22:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure how you'd do it, but it may be worth considering adding a set of statistics for each one for the year that they won the award, because I don't know, for example, how many matches the women play?
- I think it would be very difficult to do that and maintain an appropriate width to the table while keeping it sortable. I think this information is presented reasonably in the rationale section, and the focus in that section is on the average, which shouldn't give too much advantage to those playing more or less matches. An entirely seperate statistics table could be created, but I think it would then make it a completely different article; I think the focus should be more on the winners than the anaylsis of their performances itself. Harrias talk 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Understood, and no need to present undue weight to analysis. I guess I'm ignorant to women's cricket mostly, and since I'm pretty keen on men's cricket, this feels a little odd. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Could add alt text to image.
- Link ICC in the lead somewhere!
- You have "Since 2009" before "Prior to 2009"... I would reverse this so it's in chronological order.
- "has been given out," ->"has been presented"?
- "without having won the award" -> "without winning the award"
- A caption for the table wouldn't go amiss (for our WP:ACCESS friends).
- Rolton has "runs" linked, no-one else seems to. Table is sortable so link each time or not at all. Check for this in the table for wickets as well. And check other terms!
- You use ODI without explaining it.
- Done. Added a note at the start of the section. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 17 is a note, not a ref.
- Renamed the section rather than having it on its own for visual purposes, though I can switch it over easily enough if you think it appropriate. Harrias talk 10:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Stef Taylor, although I've never seen any mandatory requirements for it, I'd prefer to see the refs in numerical order.
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|