Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/2003 Cricket World Cup Final/archive2

< Wikipedia:Peer review

2003 Cricket World Cup Final edit

Previous peer review
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

I'd like to take this article to FAC; it was promoted to GA almost a year back. I've tried to incorporate a few suggestions from the previous peer review. I'm still lost because we don't have an appropriate model to follow. Suggestions pertaining to structure and prose are most welcome. Thanks, —Vensatry (talk) 09:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copy-editing of the opening paragraphs. Please take a look and let me know if they were improvements (or not)! I'll have a look at other parts of the article later. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 comments – Even after reviewing many cricket articles over the years, I'm still not literate in the sport. While I can't help much with match summaries and the like, here are some pointers from throughout the article:

  • Just for my own knowledge, is "where as" British English or Indian English. We usually have that as one word in the U.S., but it it's normal over there than no problem.
  • "Australia entered the match as firm favourites, which was watched by a crowd of around 32,000." The part after the comma should go before "as firm favourites", as the crowd refers to the match and not Australia's status.
  • We don't need two Sachin Tendulkar links in the lead.
  • Background: "where each qualifier from either of the groups played each qualifier of the other group exactly once." "exactly" strikes me as redundant, and you can remove it without affecting the meaning. A few prose tweaks like this will help at FAC.
  • Group stage: A good half of the second paragraph is unsourced. This will need to be rectified for the article to have a chance at FAC.
  • Super Sixes: Check for a double "margin" in the second paragraph.
  • "Zaheer Khan took career-best...". This needs "a" after "took".
  • Second semi-final: Should the first word of "Man of the match" be capitalized?
  • Build up: Italicize Wisden Cricketers' Almanack.
  • "Simon Wilde called the venue as one of the most...".
  • Remove the apostrophe at the end of South African airlines'.
  • "and who the Indian fans had high expectations." Feels like this should have "of" at the end.
  • "he released a statement saying that team...". This needs "the" or "his" before "team". Also, "is" should be changed to "was" to reflect past tense.
  • Summary: "Gilchrist in particular hit both Khan and Srinath for a lot of runs." "a lot" is going to sound vague to FAC reviewers. How about trying "many" instead?
  • Aftermath: The first paragraph is unsourced.
  • "Even Ganguly called such a result would be 'tragic'." "called" → "said".
  • "Australia were rewarded with a prize money of US$2,000,000." Remove "a" from this bit.
  • Minor, but the Wisden link could be moved to earlier in the article, where it was in Build-up. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008: Sorry for the delay in getting back, and thanks for the comments. I've fixed all but the last one – not quite sure what needs to be done. —Vensatry (talk) 12:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • What I meant is that there is a link to the almanac in the last paragraph of the Aftermath section. Since we mention the publication in Build up, it makes sense to have a link there at the first mention, instead of the one in Aftermath. While I'm here, there's one thing above that was missed (look for the unstruck bit), and the mention of the almanack in the first paragraph of Aftermath needs an apostrophe and a typo fix (for "Alamanack"). Giants2008 (Talk) 20:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintor2 (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC) The article looks in good shape but there somethings that bothered me[reply]

  • Avoid short paragraphs like the third one from the lead. Every paragraph should be the same more or less. Either expand them or merging it with others
  • On the other hand, the lead's second paragraph it's huge. Try trimming it a little.
  • In Scorecard, I don't see the need of flags. Aren't flags common knowledge?
  • The first sentence of Aftermath is unsourced. Reference it and if possible expand it or merge it with another paragraph.
  • Considering the age of the paragraphs I suggest archving using webcitaion.org or finding them in web.archive.org
Anyway, I hope that helped you. I also made my own peer review here and I would appreciate feedback. Regards.
@Tintor2: Fixed all. Thanks for the comments. As for your PR, I'm afraid that's not my area of interest. Anyway, I'll give a try picking some minor ones. —Vensatry (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good work. When making the FA nomination, feel free to call me. Also, if you wanna get more peer reviews I would recommend you to review other articles and request feedback in response. That's at least how I do it.Tintor2 (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have already nominated the article for FAC. Will try to review it over the next 2-3 days. Cheers —Vensatry (talk) 14:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim edit

I'll add points as I go along Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • avoid US spelling, eg "favorite"
  • the largest number of participants in a World Cup until then->the largest number of participants in any World Cup
  • The 2007 WC had more (16) participants. —Vensatry (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In contrast, commentators considered -> some commentators
  • after he was found positive in the drug test ->after he tested positive in the drug test
  • Pool A and B sometimes in quote marks, sometimes not. Similarly super sixes ( personally I wouldn't use the marks)
  • Zaheer Khan took a career-best figures drop "a"
  • Australia was unanimously called by many journalists this construction sounds US to me, pretty sure it's not UK or Indian English
  • most critics and analysts unanimously
  • Ganguly issued a statement saying that his team is honoured- was honoured?
  • who the Indian fans had high expectations of-> of whom the Indian fans had high expectations
  • Ponting's innings remains the highest individual score... Australia's total remains the highest by a team in a World Cup final. start with As of December 2016...
  • Given WC is conducted once in four years, why not "as of the 2015 WC"? —Vensatry (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also became the first team to win all the matches... They?
I'm a Brit, so cricket isn't a complete mystery. I don't normally review or write articles on this topic, so I have to assume that the level of detail is appropriate. Generally reads well. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:21, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak: I absolutely knew. :) By 'non-specialist', I meant someone who wasn't a regular at WP:CRIC. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with all your replies, let me know when you nom, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cas Liber

looks alright, but try to remove as much directly quoted material as possible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks. I've made a few changes. —Vensatry (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/2003_Cricket_World_Cup_Final/archive2&oldid=1136085733"