This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wisden Trophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Wisden Trophy was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
This is good enough that it might well have a shot at Good Article (GA) status. However there's a due process to be gone through for that, and as an individual assessor I don't have authority to rate it that highly. One minor point: though the last two series happened each to have had four Tests, I'm not sure that that is more than chance. However I haven't altered the wording. JH ( talk page) 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to be neutral in this article, but being a England fan I might not be completely impartial at times. So please state any parts that are biased so I can correct the relevant parts. Monsta666 18:10, 9 July 2007 (U
Chaza 93 Shall Review it Tomorrow, I'm too tired now Chaza 93 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I put this article on hold but it needs a lot of work. The thing that stands out most is the grammar
Added later: I've been looking at other sources such as Wisden/BBC and they often refer to the West Indian cricket team simply as "West Indies" not "the West Indies" as you suggest.
Added Later: Cricket only treats the word "Test" as an noun so there is no reason to say First Test unless you are beginning a sentence. Like the West Indies issue Wisden/BBC say first Test not First Test as you suggest but have followed your suggestion.
Final comments: My comments might sound a bit harsh at times but I still greatly appreciate your comments as you have helped me (and the article) greatly. Thanks for taking the time to review this page. Monsta666 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Regards, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Ashes is a useful model. It is an FA, but was promoted in the old days when inline references were not necessary and thinks were a bit looser. But it should still be around modern GA levels. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am going to have to fail this article because the language is not really up to standard. The info is pretty good although the model used for sections seems to vary with different sections which makes it seem a bit funny. I went and copyedited some myself and I will help in the cleanup for the next improvement I think. But at the moment, Dweller also agrees with me. SEe my talk page. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the whole article and attempted to sharpen up the English. I think that the descriptions of some of the series, especially some of the early ones, could usefully be expanded (for example there's no mention of Trueman's fine performance in the Third Test of 1963), but that will have to wait for another time. JH ( talk page) 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've just done a first GA review on this excellent article. Here are my (very few) findings:
And that's it, really!
Once you've addressed those two minor points, I will still ask for a second opinion over at
WP:GAN, for two reasons:
Finally, I'd like to thank you all for what I consider a great article - as with all the cricket articles I've read here, it is a pleasure to read! Carre 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>The Harmison thing was because it wasn't clear which one, First or Second, since there was no indication of which the Sabina Park test was. I've just stuck an "in the First Test" on the sentence in question - I hope that's OK.
Regarding the {{ fact}} tags, on rereading I think a couple of them may be a bit harsh/strict, so if you disagree with the need of a citation on any of them, list it here and I'll see if it's one of the ones I can live without for GA :)
And on to the CricInfo/Wisden source - it seems the consensus with the GAN crowd is that the current sources would be OK, but if you can do the "best of both worlds" thing that Jhall1 mentions, that would be spot on - lets people use their collection if they have hard-copy, or go to the library, or register for the Wisden pages. Carre 12:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Finally I was wondering if there was anything that could be done to improve this article further? Thanks for the review/copy editing greatly appreciate it. Monsta666 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as improving the article further is concerned, I think the earlier series tend to be covered in rather less depth than the more recent ones. BTW, I;ve altered the title of the section descrivbing the tropty from "Wisden cup" to "Wisden Trophy", as it's obvious from the photgraph that it isn't in the form of a cup. (I think it's correct to capitialise both words rather than just the first, since it's the designated name of the trophy.) JH ( talk page) 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just realised I put this on Monsta's talk page, but it would be more appropriate here:
Ireland just lost 15-30 to Argentina and are out... How shocking only England, Scotland and France left from the 'sick nations'. Monsta666 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done folks. I'd get rid of that nasty "Other - various Wisden Almanacks" right at the end though! Looks horrible! Again, my congratulations, and thanks. Carre 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Wisden Trophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a link to a stub: Richards-Botham Trophy. Someone changed one of my previous edits on another page and said one shouldn't link to pages, without creating the page itself. So I suggest this be removed. I've not removed it as I don't know if the other person was correct. Infobleep ( talk) 11:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This older GA promotion is listed at WP:SWEEPS2023, a limited GA sweeps initiative to review older good article promotions flagged as higher-risk for not meeting the modern GA criteria. There is significant uncited text in the article, particularly when describing the post-2000 developments, and this information does not appear to meet the WP:BLUE exception. Additionally, the entire Summary of Results section is uncited. If improvements do not occur, a good article reassessment may be necessary. Hog Farm Talk 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
Lots of uncited passages, including entire sections. Hog Farm outlined concerns on the talk page in March, but there was no response and the article has not been edited since 2022. Z1720 ( talk) 02:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Wisden Trophy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Wisden Trophy was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
This is good enough that it might well have a shot at Good Article (GA) status. However there's a due process to be gone through for that, and as an individual assessor I don't have authority to rate it that highly. One minor point: though the last two series happened each to have had four Tests, I'm not sure that that is more than chance. However I haven't altered the wording. JH ( talk page) 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I have tried to be neutral in this article, but being a England fan I might not be completely impartial at times. So please state any parts that are biased so I can correct the relevant parts. Monsta666 18:10, 9 July 2007 (U
Chaza 93 Shall Review it Tomorrow, I'm too tired now Chaza 93 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I put this article on hold but it needs a lot of work. The thing that stands out most is the grammar
Added later: I've been looking at other sources such as Wisden/BBC and they often refer to the West Indian cricket team simply as "West Indies" not "the West Indies" as you suggest.
Added Later: Cricket only treats the word "Test" as an noun so there is no reason to say First Test unless you are beginning a sentence. Like the West Indies issue Wisden/BBC say first Test not First Test as you suggest but have followed your suggestion.
Final comments: My comments might sound a bit harsh at times but I still greatly appreciate your comments as you have helped me (and the article) greatly. Thanks for taking the time to review this page. Monsta666 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Regards, Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 06:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The Ashes is a useful model. It is an FA, but was promoted in the old days when inline references were not necessary and thinks were a bit looser. But it should still be around modern GA levels. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I am going to have to fail this article because the language is not really up to standard. The info is pretty good although the model used for sections seems to vary with different sections which makes it seem a bit funny. I went and copyedited some myself and I will help in the cleanup for the next improvement I think. But at the moment, Dweller also agrees with me. SEe my talk page. Blnguyen ( bananabucket) 02:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through the whole article and attempted to sharpen up the English. I think that the descriptions of some of the series, especially some of the early ones, could usefully be expanded (for example there's no mention of Trueman's fine performance in the Third Test of 1963), but that will have to wait for another time. JH ( talk page) 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi all,
I've just done a first GA review on this excellent article. Here are my (very few) findings:
And that's it, really!
Once you've addressed those two minor points, I will still ask for a second opinion over at
WP:GAN, for two reasons:
Finally, I'd like to thank you all for what I consider a great article - as with all the cricket articles I've read here, it is a pleasure to read! Carre 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
<undent>The Harmison thing was because it wasn't clear which one, First or Second, since there was no indication of which the Sabina Park test was. I've just stuck an "in the First Test" on the sentence in question - I hope that's OK.
Regarding the {{ fact}} tags, on rereading I think a couple of them may be a bit harsh/strict, so if you disagree with the need of a citation on any of them, list it here and I'll see if it's one of the ones I can live without for GA :)
And on to the CricInfo/Wisden source - it seems the consensus with the GAN crowd is that the current sources would be OK, but if you can do the "best of both worlds" thing that Jhall1 mentions, that would be spot on - lets people use their collection if they have hard-copy, or go to the library, or register for the Wisden pages. Carre 12:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Finally I was wondering if there was anything that could be done to improve this article further? Thanks for the review/copy editing greatly appreciate it. Monsta666 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as improving the article further is concerned, I think the earlier series tend to be covered in rather less depth than the more recent ones. BTW, I;ve altered the title of the section descrivbing the tropty from "Wisden cup" to "Wisden Trophy", as it's obvious from the photgraph that it isn't in the form of a cup. (I think it's correct to capitialise both words rather than just the first, since it's the designated name of the trophy.) JH ( talk page) 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just realised I put this on Monsta's talk page, but it would be more appropriate here:
Ireland just lost 15-30 to Argentina and are out... How shocking only England, Scotland and France left from the 'sick nations'. Monsta666 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well done folks. I'd get rid of that nasty "Other - various Wisden Almanacks" right at the end though! Looks horrible! Again, my congratulations, and thanks. Carre 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Wisden Trophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a link to a stub: Richards-Botham Trophy. Someone changed one of my previous edits on another page and said one shouldn't link to pages, without creating the page itself. So I suggest this be removed. I've not removed it as I don't know if the other person was correct. Infobleep ( talk) 11:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
This older GA promotion is listed at WP:SWEEPS2023, a limited GA sweeps initiative to review older good article promotions flagged as higher-risk for not meeting the modern GA criteria. There is significant uncited text in the article, particularly when describing the post-2000 developments, and this information does not appear to meet the WP:BLUE exception. Additionally, the entire Summary of Results section is uncited. If improvements do not occur, a good article reassessment may be necessary. Hog Farm Talk 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
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.
Lots of uncited passages, including entire sections. Hog Farm outlined concerns on the talk page in March, but there was no response and the article has not been edited since 2022. Z1720 ( talk) 02:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)