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
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.
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
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
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...
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
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
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.
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
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
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...
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