Rename to Reverse swing

edit

I believe this is the natural name for this article. Then the section that Reverse swing currently redirects to can specifiy {{main|Reverse swing}}. Mark Hurd (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Requested move

edit
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)Reply



Reverse (cricket)Reverse swing – I believe this is the natural name for this article. Then the section that Reverse swing currently redirects to can specifiy {{main|Reverse swing}}. Mark Hurd (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rewrite

edit

This article has information that is factually incorrect, with zero citations. I've added a re-write tag to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.91.236 (talk) 00:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Article plagiarised from BBC Sport Website

edit

BBC Sport: Cricket: Swing and seam bowling — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulredfern1 (talkcontribs) 10:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

edit

Despite over 100 contributors to this article, almost all the text is a straight copy, or light paraphrase of [this site, whose 2005 date predates the first edit of this article. While a couple stray phrases may not be from that site, the main text will be choppy if I leave in the few legitimate sentences, which were not referenced. Therefore, I've stubbed the article.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Redirected to Swing bowling#Reverse swing

edit

I redirected this page to the more substantial and better written subsection on the matter within the Swing bowling page. The page has had a cleanup notice for two years and was very badly worded, ambiguous, lacking in detail, lacking in citations, and not particularly deserving of its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kb.au (talkcontribs) 12:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply