Wikipedia

Talk:Leah Poulton

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page
Good articleLeah Poulton has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 27, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 3, 2010.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Leah Poulton scored an ODI century in her third match for Australia women's cricket team?
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 27, 2018, and February 27, 2024.

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
This review is transcluded from Talk:Leah Poulton/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Although I've had a small bit of input on this article; I don't feel it is a conflict of interest to review this. Harrias talk 15:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Lead
  • ..who plays for the New South Wales and.. – you should either say "..for the New South Wales Breakers and..", or simply "..for New South Wales and.."
  • Could you pipe batsman to Batting (cricket) rather than rely on the redirect?
  • Could you add (WNCL) after your first use of Women's National Cricket League.
  • She was not successful in her first three seasons.. – I'm not too happy with this phrasing. By her own standards at the time she may well consider herself successful by merely being in the team; could you change it to something slightly less negative?
  • ..she regular captained Australia's Under-19 and Under-23 team during this time.. – should use "regularly" and teams.
  • In 2005–06, made an impact on the WNCL for the first time.. – again, to phrase the lead slightly less negatively, could you try something like "In 2005–06, Poulton made her first real impact on the WNCL.."?
  • ..and earned herself a recall to the Australian team at the start of the season. – At the start of the English or Australian season? It's a bit ambiguous.
  • After scoring 376 runs at 41.77.. – Would be worth having some explanation of batting average included here somehow, even if you just put average in piped to the batting average article.
  • ..the playing XI in both.. – Not too comfortable with the use of 'XI', particularly in the lead, it's a bit jargonny. Could you simply state "playing team"?
  • ..she hit her second ODI century, 104 not out against New Zealand. – Seems odd mentioning this when you didn't mention the first century?
  • Would probably be worth linking some more terms (including Rose Bowl series and century) through the lead, while you do link them at first use in the rest of the article, some people may only read the lead and still expect to find a link to tell them more! (Some people want everything though..)

I'll leave it here for the moment, and either cover another section or two this evening, or wait until you've responded to these comments. Harrias talk 15:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Done. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Youth cricket
  • The first paragraph seems like three independent bullet points, and is very disjointed, could you perhaps improve the flow slightly?
Senior domestic debut
  • Poulton made many starts in her maiden season without converting them into large scores. – Using the term 'starts' in this way is possibly a bit too ambiguous, what some people consider a 'start', others may think a decent score. I would guess that it also wouldn't be very understandable to someone who doesn't follow cricket. To be honest, I'm not sure you say anything in this sentence that isn't then repeated in more detail in the next one, so this may be completely redundant anyway.
  • Poulton made only 1 and 11 in the deciding matches, which were lost by three wickets and 40 runs respectively. – I would say if you're going to use '1', you should also use '3', but I'd prefer 1 and 3 in written form, and maybe even eleven too.
  • She was unbeaten in the other two fifties after opening the batting as New South Wales completed a ten-wicket win. – I'll be honest, I can't really make head nor tail of this sentence really, it could do with a serious overhaul. You seem to refer to two innings, and yet only one win, and the bit about opening the batting seems out of place. Probably worth rewriting it into two sentences.
  • Poulton had an interrupted season in 2003–04. After playing in the first two matches against Western Australia, scoring only 3 not out and 1 as New South Wales took both matches, she was absent until the finals series. – I'm guessing as this is reffed to the player oracle, you don't know why she missed so much? No issue with that if it is the case, but thought I'd check?
  • Poulton was not selected for the first match, which was won by the home team, and was recalled. – Again, I'm not keen on this sentence, it doesn't make that much sense to me. At the least it should specify she was recalled for the second match, but probably worth reworking the sentence.
  • Don't think that youth needs to be capitalised in Australian Youth team.
  • ..and played in four matches against New Zealand A,[17] scoring 127 runs at 31.75 in four matches.. – No need to repeat "four matches"
  • hosts' senior team – There is only one host: "host's senior team"
  • ..and won all but the washed-out second match.[4] In the second match, .. – From looking at the ref, I think it was the third match that was washed-out? Regardless, as you go on to mention the third match; washed-out implies to me that it was abandoned without a ball bowled, so maybe clarify slightly more?
  • I would avoid using the term 'first-class' for women's cricket, as far as I am aware there is no definition of women's first-class cricket, and as most of women's cricket revolves around the one-day game, it's slightly misleading.
  • Poulton played in the first four matches of the 2004–05 WNCL season, but missed three matches in a row before playing her final match of the season against Queensland and being dropped for the three finals matches against Victoria. – Long sentence without much punctuation. Could do with breaking up a little bit; either into a couple of sentences, or with more commas, though you'd have to be careful with that.
  • Possibly roll the last two paragraphs of this section together into one as they are about the same thing, and there isn't really a need for them to be seperate. Also, you start four consecutive paragraphs with 'Poulton'. It's not a huge issue, but it might look a bit better if you could avoid it.

Right, I'm going to take another break; I freely admit reading an article in the depth to review it tires me out somewhat! Harrias talk 20:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

International debut
  • The first sentence of the opening paragraph of this section is LONG. Try cutting it down to two, or maybe even three sentences.
  • The chairman of selectors Margaret Jennings said "She.. – should have some punctuation after 'said', at least a comma.
  • This left Australia at 1/0 with after 21 balls. – no need for the 'with'
  • ..with four fours.. – Just a personal thing, but I'm not keen on the repition of 'four' in this way, I'd prefer 4 fours, despite MOS:NUMBERS.
General Comment

I'll be honest, there are a lot of sentences in this article that are too long, and try and include too much information in them. On occasions this simply makes long sentences, but on others, it results in confusing and complicated statements. I'm going to put the article on hold for the time being, and hopefully you can address the issues I've raised and go through the rest of the article and fix any other such instances that you can find. Hopefully this is simply a case of you writing a lot of articles in a short period of time rather than your writing style in general. I'm happy to continue reviewing the article as soon as you've covered the points I've made, or if you come straight to me regarding this. Regards, Harrias talk 19:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Right; either suddenly I've become far less stringent in my reviewing, or you've fixed more or less everything in the article! There are still a couple of small prose issues, but nothing at all serious, and I'll pass the article, and make any necessary fixes to it myself. Well done. Harrias talk 19:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leah Poulton. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Leah Poulton. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leah_Poulton&oldid=1210709899"