This article was nominated for
deletion on 9 January 2021. The result of
the discussion was No consensus.
A fact from Galle Gladiators in 2020 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 March 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lanka Premier League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
Lanka Premier League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of
cricket. Please participate by visiting the
project and
talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based
WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in
one big list and in
CSV format)
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.
ALT2: ... that
Danushka Gunathilaka scored the most runs than any other batsman in LPL belonging from the 2020's Galle Gladiators, although the team won only 3 matches in the league? Source:
[1][2]
OK. I read through the article and frankly, I understood nothing. I left tags at every place where you're talking about a number and not defining what that number means—balls? wickets? runs? Or what? It would help when you're writing these articles to link unfamiliar terms on their first mention, such as "batting", "bowling", "run rate", and "target". I also deleted the Squad and Administration sections, which belong in the 2020 season template at the bottom.
Regarding the hooks, ALT1 is practically a news report, not a hook. Shorter is always better. In ALT2, "LPL" is going to have to be spelled out, which is going to send the character count over the 200-character limit. As someone who knows nothing about cricket, this hook also doesn't make sense to me so I wouldn't want to click on it. In ALT3, same problem: if you don't know what a fifer is, the hook holds no interest. Try to write something that will appeal to an international, non-cricket audience.
Yoninah (
talk)
21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The article reads very well now. It is new enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Putting on temporary hold pending suggestion of a multi-article hook with other LPL cricket nominations.
Yoninah (
talk)
13:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Approving as part of a multi-article hook, which will be finalized at
Template:Did you know nominations/Jaffna Stallions in 2020. New enough when nominated. Long enough. Neutrally written. No copyvio detected. Hook fact (which is on the other page that I just linked) is cited and verified. I did some copyediting, so hopefully I caught all of the odd formatting and phrasing. QPQ not required.
Rather the blunder ahead and do this myself, I'm going to raise the issues I have with this article here and let someone else do it - on the grounds that these sorts of issues need to be addressed in a number of articles.
In the table of players there are issues with:
there is no prose introducing the table; there needs to be, especially as this is for a specific season;
Not done, which tables? About squad?
there's no date last updated
Done
the flags don't have words attached to them; they need to for accessibility purposes
Done
there is no reason to be using colour in the table headers; if this is being used for any non decorative purpose that has major accessibility issue related to it; just use a plain table - it's much easier to read from an accessibility perspective;
Done
the pink lines with players unavailable for the rest of the season now need to be removed and the key updated;
Done
the ages are going to continue to update. This is misleading - in 20 years time it will appear that people in their 50s played in matches for this side. Using the template Birth date and age2 allows the ages to be tied to a given date - I would suggest the first date on which a match in the LPL was played in 2020;
Done
the source is given as CricInfo, followed by six references, none of which are for CricInfo. So what is the source(s)?
Done
Then I would think:
the admin and support staff section has no prose. Given the content, this would be much better off simply as prose rather than as a table;
Done
"first-ever" is a tautology; but thank you for writing a prose section for this;
should the list of matches be in the same section as the prose? Or do we need that list at all? The competition table could also be included within that section;
Not done, I think it should be there.
the results by match is redundant and should be removed;
Done
for the table of matches, I would suggest:
the abbreviations are meaningless to a causal reader; remove them and replace them with names;
Done
sort out the column widths;
Not done, don't know how to do so.
lose both of the first two columns - the date is more important;
Done
why have you included the player of the match? If it's included, we need an indication of which team they played for and we should lose the flags - these aren't significant in this part of the article;
Done, In most cases, man of the match belongs to the winning team. Moreover, the squad is given above.
by notes, we mean reference, yes? So say that;
Not done, these are not only refs but some additional notes like 'won in super over', 'cancelled due to rain'.
the stats needs a brief prose intro at least - there is a case that all of this would be better served by prose rather than a set of tables;
Done
the same issues with the colour in the tables and the overuse of flags remain;
Done
don't make table widths 100% - there's no need to do that; the column widths are much more important;
Done
the as of dates are now redundant;
Done
the awards and achievements section is unnecessary; if this information isn't already included in the season summary prose section then it should be; player of the match is not a highlight worth having its own set of tables for;
Not done, I think MotM should remain there. This is not included in season summary.
the entire see also section should be removed under
WP:ALSO;
Done
how may nav boxes do you want at the bottom? And why? Just the 2020 season one and the team one is fine.
Done
These are basic things that need to be addressed about article like this. They aren't hard to do - and it's ironic that the really hard thing (writing a referenced season summary prose section) has been done.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
12:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Tahaaleem there's no need to apologise at all. These are things that I see in many articles developed by many editors. I don't usually write a list like this of the things I have issues with, but felt that as this article had been nominated for DYK and the discussion above about that, that it was worth sharing my opinion.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
15:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I assume the same adjustments would have to be made to:
Some issues have been resolved, however I think the season summary section needs to be summarised I think it's very detailed as compared to other team articles. Thank you.
TahaaleemTalk16:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I will get around to looking at this over the next couple of days - and sorting out things like the col width. For the first point in the list, yes, the table of players.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
19:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply
This article was nominated for
deletion on 9 January 2021. The result of
the discussion was No consensus.
A fact from Galle Gladiators in 2020 appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 March 2021 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lanka Premier League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
Lanka Premier League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sri Lanka, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Sri Lanka on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sri LankaWikipedia:WikiProject Sri LankaTemplate:WikiProject Sri LankaSri Lanka articles
This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of
cricket. Please participate by visiting the
project and
talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based
WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in
one big list and in
CSV format)
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.
ALT2: ... that
Danushka Gunathilaka scored the most runs than any other batsman in LPL belonging from the 2020's Galle Gladiators, although the team won only 3 matches in the league? Source:
[1][2]
OK. I read through the article and frankly, I understood nothing. I left tags at every place where you're talking about a number and not defining what that number means—balls? wickets? runs? Or what? It would help when you're writing these articles to link unfamiliar terms on their first mention, such as "batting", "bowling", "run rate", and "target". I also deleted the Squad and Administration sections, which belong in the 2020 season template at the bottom.
Regarding the hooks, ALT1 is practically a news report, not a hook. Shorter is always better. In ALT2, "LPL" is going to have to be spelled out, which is going to send the character count over the 200-character limit. As someone who knows nothing about cricket, this hook also doesn't make sense to me so I wouldn't want to click on it. In ALT3, same problem: if you don't know what a fifer is, the hook holds no interest. Try to write something that will appeal to an international, non-cricket audience.
Yoninah (
talk)
21:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)reply
The article reads very well now. It is new enough, long enough, neutrally written, well referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. No QPQ needed for nominator with less than 5 DYK credits. Putting on temporary hold pending suggestion of a multi-article hook with other LPL cricket nominations.
Yoninah (
talk)
13:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Approving as part of a multi-article hook, which will be finalized at
Template:Did you know nominations/Jaffna Stallions in 2020. New enough when nominated. Long enough. Neutrally written. No copyvio detected. Hook fact (which is on the other page that I just linked) is cited and verified. I did some copyediting, so hopefully I caught all of the odd formatting and phrasing. QPQ not required.
Rather the blunder ahead and do this myself, I'm going to raise the issues I have with this article here and let someone else do it - on the grounds that these sorts of issues need to be addressed in a number of articles.
In the table of players there are issues with:
there is no prose introducing the table; there needs to be, especially as this is for a specific season;
Not done, which tables? About squad?
there's no date last updated
Done
the flags don't have words attached to them; they need to for accessibility purposes
Done
there is no reason to be using colour in the table headers; if this is being used for any non decorative purpose that has major accessibility issue related to it; just use a plain table - it's much easier to read from an accessibility perspective;
Done
the pink lines with players unavailable for the rest of the season now need to be removed and the key updated;
Done
the ages are going to continue to update. This is misleading - in 20 years time it will appear that people in their 50s played in matches for this side. Using the template Birth date and age2 allows the ages to be tied to a given date - I would suggest the first date on which a match in the LPL was played in 2020;
Done
the source is given as CricInfo, followed by six references, none of which are for CricInfo. So what is the source(s)?
Done
Then I would think:
the admin and support staff section has no prose. Given the content, this would be much better off simply as prose rather than as a table;
Done
"first-ever" is a tautology; but thank you for writing a prose section for this;
should the list of matches be in the same section as the prose? Or do we need that list at all? The competition table could also be included within that section;
Not done, I think it should be there.
the results by match is redundant and should be removed;
Done
for the table of matches, I would suggest:
the abbreviations are meaningless to a causal reader; remove them and replace them with names;
Done
sort out the column widths;
Not done, don't know how to do so.
lose both of the first two columns - the date is more important;
Done
why have you included the player of the match? If it's included, we need an indication of which team they played for and we should lose the flags - these aren't significant in this part of the article;
Done, In most cases, man of the match belongs to the winning team. Moreover, the squad is given above.
by notes, we mean reference, yes? So say that;
Not done, these are not only refs but some additional notes like 'won in super over', 'cancelled due to rain'.
the stats needs a brief prose intro at least - there is a case that all of this would be better served by prose rather than a set of tables;
Done
the same issues with the colour in the tables and the overuse of flags remain;
Done
don't make table widths 100% - there's no need to do that; the column widths are much more important;
Done
the as of dates are now redundant;
Done
the awards and achievements section is unnecessary; if this information isn't already included in the season summary prose section then it should be; player of the match is not a highlight worth having its own set of tables for;
Not done, I think MotM should remain there. This is not included in season summary.
the entire see also section should be removed under
WP:ALSO;
Done
how may nav boxes do you want at the bottom? And why? Just the 2020 season one and the team one is fine.
Done
These are basic things that need to be addressed about article like this. They aren't hard to do - and it's ironic that the really hard thing (writing a referenced season summary prose section) has been done.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
12:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Tahaaleem there's no need to apologise at all. These are things that I see in many articles developed by many editors. I don't usually write a list like this of the things I have issues with, but felt that as this article had been nominated for DYK and the discussion above about that, that it was worth sharing my opinion.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
15:35, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I assume the same adjustments would have to be made to:
Some issues have been resolved, however I think the season summary section needs to be summarised I think it's very detailed as compared to other team articles. Thank you.
TahaaleemTalk16:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)reply
I will get around to looking at this over the next couple of days - and sorting out things like the col width. For the first point in the list, yes, the table of players.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
19:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)reply