1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy final was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 26, 2015 Good article nominee Not listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " Did you know?" column on December 5, 2014. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that South Africa won the nine-nation ICC KnockOut Trophy in 1998, defeating West Indies by four wickets in the final?

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Cricket: Bangladesh Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Bangladesh cricket task force. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. WikiProject Cricket To-do list: history watch purge Article assessment Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details Verifiability Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards Cleanup 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) Infoboxes Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes Cricket people Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list Check the listing of key bios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class. Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket. Create articles for redlinks present here and here Cricket teams & countries Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe; Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams Create articles about cricket in these missing countries Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI Images Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here On this day in cricket Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries Umpires Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel Women Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours Update A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains Regularly updating cricketers' career stats. Other Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary Bangladesh Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bangladesh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bangladesh 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.BangladeshWikipedia:WikiProject BangladeshTemplate:WikiProject BangladeshBangladesh articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Bangladesh To-do list: history watch purge Add more images to Bangladesh Liberation War and related pages Clean up Climate change in Bangladesh, it needs a lot of work Clean up History of Bangladesh after independence, it needs NPOV Improve Bangladesh back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengali language back to FA as it was demoted (see discussion) Improve Bengalis and related pages Take a look at the requested articles. Make a MRT line 3 article. Extend, add an infobox and a map of New Eskaton to New Eskaton. South Africa Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This review is transcluded from Talk:1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias ( talk · contribs) 11:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll have a look at this one. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Initial thoughts

Overall, I think the balance of this article could do with a little bit of work. The "Road to the Final" section (which should be renamed "Route to the Final" as per the current GAs) could do with detailing more of how the finalists fared earlier in the tournament. I don't think there is any need for the match summary boxes for the semi-finals though. Take a look at what I did in 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final, or what was done in 2008 Indian Premier League Final for a couple of different approaches, but both offering more background to the final itself, giving a feel for how the tournament had gone for the two sides.

The prose could also do with cleaning up: "South African captain Hansie Cronje handed the new ball.." isn't encyclopaedic language, while "..after West Indies losing the toss and invited to bat" doesn't make much sense at all. The few sentences about Symcox are very stop-start, and need some work to make them flow better; the same could be said about a lot of the prose: try to make it sound less like a series of bullet points.

An "Aftermath" section would also be beneficial, perhaps giving a brief summary of how the teams fared in the few years after this tournament, and broadly how the next tournament was. Harrias ^talk 23:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Done. -- Khadar Khani ( talk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, completely missed this. I'm likely to be quite busy for the next few days with work stuff, but I'll do my best to get to it as soon as possible. Feel free to ping me if you think I might have forgotten! Harrias ^talk 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

• No problem, I'm busy too! -- Khadar Khani ( talk) 21:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the work you have done on this. That said, I think a fair bit is still needed: the prose is jilted, and still reads more like a string of bullet points, rather than flowing nicely. There are a number of inconsistencies (in the lead you use "knock out stage", but later "KnockOut stage", the infobox says "245/10", whereas elsewhere you use "245 all out" or "245". It might be better to take this to peer review, and then come back after some more work has been done. That said, if you would like, I can carry out an in depth review here if you would prefer? Harrias ^talk 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Harrias: thanks for looking at this one. A review here is a better option, I think. -- Khadar Khani ( talk) 22:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Lead

• If it was officially known as the Wills International Cup, and ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive both use this title for the tournament, why is that not the name of the article?
• I'm not keen on the term "pre-quarter final match", and to be honest, I'm not sure that the details are required in the lead, given neither of the finalists played in that match.
• While the competition (might) be called "KnockOut", that isn't encyclopedic language to use when referring to a "knock-out" or "knockout" stage. Pick one of those options, and use it consistently through the article, except when referring to the name of the tournament.
• "reached into the semi-finals. South Africa reached into the final" No need for either use of "into". This is also very repetitive, using the same terminology twice in less than a sentence.
• Link "1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy" on the first use, not at the start of the second paragraph.
• In fact, it isn't needed to repeat the full title of the tournament, maybe start the second paragraph "The tournament's final was played..."
• Avoid the "noun plus -ing" construction, such as "with Philo Wallace scoring 103 runs". Have a look at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for guidance.
• "Hansie Cronje and Mike Rindel scoring 61 not out and 49 runs respectively." This sentence doesn't work on its own in this tense: changing "scoring" to "scored" would help.
• "won the inaugural edition of the ICC Knock out Trophy" Be consistent with the tournament name.
• "South Africa won the inaugural edition of the ICC Knock out Trophy by defeating West Indies in the final; they won the match by four wickets." In fact, the whole sentence is full of redundancy: maybe rewrite as "South Africa won the inaugural edition of the ICC KnockOut Trophy by four wickets." The rest of the information has already been given, and doesn't need repeating. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Harrias: done except the first one, I would like to change the title at the end of the discussion. -- Khadar Khani ( talk) 15:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Route to the Final (Knock-out stage)

• I'm not convinced on the scope of this section. It possibly needs a little bit more about the finalists, and a little bit less about the rest of the teams, overall making the section probably a little bit longer.

Route to the Final (Semi-finals)

• Not sure the dates of the matches are especially relevant to this article.
• Both paragraphs suffer slightly from sounding like a string of bullet points, and should be improved to flow better.
• The grammar could do with improvement, for example: "and the revising target was 224 runs" should have revised, rather than revising.

Build-up

• This section very much seems like a string of unrelated sentences, and needs improvements to allow it to flow better.

Match

• I'm not sure that "whereas" is the right word to use, as the opening batsman and bowlers are not really comparable.
• The section does in general flow a lot better than previous sections, but could still do with some work, for example: "Wallace was dropped twice in his innings by Jonty Rhodes. He was stumped by Mark Boucher off the bowling of Cronje. South Africa were 180 runs for four wicket at that moment." probably does not need to be three separate sentences.
• Avoid "noun plus -ing", such as "with Wallace taking the total to 94." See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for some guidance.

Aftermath

• "The South African captain received US$100,000..", "The West Indian captain received US$60,000 for.." Was it just the captain that received prize money, or the entire team?
• It might be worth mentioning the next tournament briefly here, and how South Africa/West Indies did.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b ( MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a ( reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c ( OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a ( major aspects): b ( focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b ( appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'll place the article on hold at the moment to allow you time to address these concerns. Harrias ^talk 12:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

No significant work has been done on this over the last week. I'm going to close the nomination as failed, and would recommend working through the above before nomination again. Harrias ^talk 08:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply