Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 May 2020 [1].

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

edit
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final was the first time that England won the Women's World Cup outside of England. It was one of England's best-ever women's teams: Claire Taylor went on to become the first woman to be named one of Wisden's Cricketers of the Year shortly thereafter. The article underwent a FAC back in 2015 when Mkativerata raised a number of concerns about the prose being "impenetrable" and about comprehensiveness. I have worked through the article, adding information which I think now makes it a comprehensive summary of the match, while hopefully making it more accessible at the same time. As always, I appreciate any and all input. Harrias talk 14:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Fowler&fowler

edit

This is about as cavalier, indeed brazen, a submission as I've seen at FAC. The article is all but unchanged since its last unsuccessful FAC five years ago. Please compare. What change there is has followed a snow-job performed in the hours of the same late morning leading up to the submission. If this is not disrespecting the FAC process, I don't know what is. I won't bother with picking apart the prose of the lead, for I imagine it was already examined five years ago.

This submission is a non-starter. I respectfully suggest that the nominator withdraw it, ponder the point of it, work on it for a few months, and resubmit. @FAC coordinators: you tell us to cite chapter and verse in each actionable sentence, inexorably, but when does a submission become a parody of the process, a waste of community time? I was going to start this review by saying, "I don't know that much about cricket." But such a submission doesn't require such an apology. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. On that basis that you've clearly ignored WP:AGF and WP:NPA, I'll ignore WP:NPA too. Fuck off. I started making the changes in response to Mkativerata during the review, but it got archived before that user could revisit. If, as you say, "I imagine it was already examined five years ago" then the diff you need would be this one; from the start of the review, not the end of it. Even if the only changes made were those yesterday morning, what difference does that make; I believe that they address the concerns raised. But you've made up your mind, so just carry on without reading it, you clearly know what it says anyway. Harrias talk 07:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had read the article when I posted my oppose; I've read the article again. The lead, for example, is not a summary of the article main body that is appropriate in respect of extent or distinctive features. There was nothing in the lead as it appeared to me on 16 April, or for that matter, as it appears just now, about the long section Route to the final, or the sections Build up and Aftermath. At 1452 words, those sections constitute 60% of the main body. A disproportionate lead would be fine; this lead is exclusionary, i.e. characterized by exclusion. You say I should compare the article to what it was at the time of the submission. Well please compare the lead Except for a few Wikilinks, a few citations, there is no difference in the two versions; none really in the prose. Please go back three years more and compare today's version with that of April 2012. The lead has barely changed. I could help you improve the prose, but the history of the article does not look promising. A reviewer can help if there is some history of progress. There is scant in the lead, as I see it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be able to provide some actionable comments here or are you just committed to trying to destroy this FAC? I'm not seeing any tangible benefit from your comments right now, nothing that actively relates to things that can be improved in the article. We're here to make Wikipedia a better place, not just destroy people who are trying to do so, with whom you clearly disagree. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 22:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is more actionable than to point out that the lead needs to be rewritten to reflect the main body, in both relative extent and characteristic features? Please don't attribute malevolent motives to me. When a lead has sat unchanged for eight years, and the article is again nominated at FAC a reviewer has to ask why and to judge what it bodes for the article. There are other people, who work very hard on their articles, for very long, whose articles are also competing for a conscientious reviewer's attention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

Of the 51 sources in today's version, 44 date to 2009 or earlier. I will shortly post reliable sources, many scholarly, published since, which should be included in the article. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my references: Talk:2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final#F&f's references (Moved to the article talk page, per WT:FAC discussion) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, right now, the article is not comprehensive. It fails 1(b). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC) PS Another reason why the article fails 1(b) is that it has insufficient context. Some of my sources address this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're obviously in 'throw-shit-at-the-wall-and-see-how-much-sticks' mode here (as usual). I've not gone through all these, but I've looked at a few and can either find only passing reference to the final not worthy of inclusion, or nothing at all (although the access through GoogleBooks and Amazon's 'Look Inside' feature don't give access to all pages). It would help if the 'reviewer' included page numbers to support his claims, and as I'm not sure about the encyclopaedic nature of the sources I looked at, a line or two of what they consider to be valid and encyclopaedic information that should be included - 1(b) does not mean every source has to be used. At least one of the sources is self-published, so not reliable anyway. - SchroCat (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's soon time to eliminate this regrettable intrusion in a process which a number of others are actually taking seriously rather than just making inappropriate scatter gun approaches in an attempt to justify an initial unacceptable outburst. It's tragic to see it unfolding. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It had nothing to do with people, but with reviews. Those were descriptors of reviews. Those words mean ostentatious; mock, illusory, without real significance; they are applied to reviews. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: I have incorporated more information from the sources you have provided. While it was never my intention to bring a half-baked nomination to FAC, that is clearly what I did, and I apologise for both that and my initial reaction to your comments. I have not included as much information as you perhaps want; I think some of it would be better included in either the Women's Cricket World Cup or 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup articles. That said, the additional information unequivocally improves the article and makes it a much more comprehensive summary of the match in question. I would be interested in any further feedback you might now have, if you are willing to have another look over the article. Harrias talk 14:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will do. It may take me a few days. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it the once over. It's looking good. Happy to offer support. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a one-off venture back to FA land for me. It's clear some reviewers still have no clue what they should be doing or how to approach a review, let alone how to take their head out of their backside and act like a human being to others. Such second rate behaviour by sub-standard reviewers should be ignored by the co-ords. Harrias, you have my sympathy for having a troll be the first visitor to the review. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from TRM

edit

I'll be judging the article on its merits. Such a pity that the tone has already been so deeply soured by Fowler&Fowler whose submission above speaks much more to themselves rather than the quality of the article which is what we are here to examine. Comments coming ASAP. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe ) 07:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Comments (I'll probably include this as part of my WikiCup submission by the way, I'm obliged to note that for some reason.)
  • " Women's Cricket World Cup, the ninth Women's Cricket World Cup." repetitive.
  • "for a total of 166" no real need for "a total of".
  • "score steadily.[1] " the only ref in the lead, it's anomalous.
  • "of the match ... of the match." repetitive.
  • "was named player of the match after replacing the injured Jenny Gunn just minutes before the start of the match." pedantic perhaps, but she was named POTM for her bowling exploits, not after replacing Gunn...
  • I see what you mean; how is "was named player of the match having replaced the injured Jenny Gunn just minutes before the game started." (It might not really be an improvement, but hopefully it provides more clarity? Harrias talk 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup was the ninth Women's Cricket World Cup." again, repetitive.
  • "between 7 and 22 March" in Australia. Various locations?
  • "a second downpour finished the match" well it more caused the match to be abandoned, right?
  • "to Cricinfo, the" you use ESPNcricinfo in the references...
  • Yes, I ummed and ahhed about this. At the time, it was Cricinfo, but now it is ESPNcricinfo. It is now hosted and published by ESPNcricinfo, so that seemed appropriate to use as the publisher details, but Jenny Roesler worked for Cricinfo at the time. I've nothing against changing it, but that's why it is like it is. Harrias talk 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a big win" sounds a little POV. Perhaps find a nice quote for something like "convincing"? Or use the present source which says they "were dominant throughout the contest but for a short period at the start"... Ah, I see you use dominated. Um, just not convinced(!) by "big" as encyclopedic.
  • "unbeaten" could be linked to not out.
  • To a non-expert, it might be worth detailing what "Super Sixes" are.
  • "of the result in their final match" perhaps reiterate it w as the "final Super Sixes match"?
  • "In their second match, New Zealand.." I think there'd be no harm in reiterating that they'd lost their first Super Sixes match to England. Especially if the format may be unknown or confusing to the readers.
  • Just a thought, you don't seem to mention the venues of any of these matches? You could.....
  • "6 sixes and 19 fours." boundary overlinked.
  • I disagree, to a layperson, a six and four are distinct things, either of which might require a link. Someone might think, "Oh, I know what a four is, but what is a six? I can't click on it?" Unlikely maybe, but I don't think we lose anything by linking them both. Harrias talk 10:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "final was a repeat of the 1993 final," final repeated.
  • "feat in 2000, while England were winners in both 1973 and 1993." could link those finals.
  • "the group stage" the Super Sixes. Is it clear that the two are synonymous? (I'll stop going on about that now).
  • "who had previously been omitted from the side" I think that's self-evident from the fact she replaced someone?
  • " but has never " as of 2020?
  • "in front of 2,300 people" in front of a crowd of 2,300"?
  • Player of the Tournament is capitalised but team of the tournament isn't?
  • Ref 47 needs en-dash, not hyphen.

That's my lot on a first review. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Okay, I have had an initial run through, let me know what you think. The Super Sixes explanation in particular might need a little refinement! Harrias talk 13:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite content with your changes (I did switch two of the three "progress" for "qualify" and "advance" for some sparkle) but otherwise it's all good. I'll take a last look tomorrow for anything else, but good work. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 17:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The final was a repeat of the 1993 tournament - you're just meaning here the same two teams met as in the 1993 final? Better to word it more like that if so as "repeat" carries a more global similarity...

Otherwise reads soundly and impresses as comprehensive Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

edit

I'm not a really a fan of cricket but I'll give it a try.

  • The 2009 tournament included eight teams I don't think the year is needed if we know it's already mentioned once.
  • suggested England and New Zealand No links for both countries' teams?
  • Haidee Tiffen, the captain of New Zealand Link of New Zealand isn't necessary.
  • Link runs, centuries and overs if possible?
  • According to Cricinfo, the West Indian reply "was devoid of momentum" Unlink "Cricinfo" and link the first time mentioned "Cricinfo".
  • reported to the International Cricket Council (ICC) as being potentially illegal "illegal" is a strange word to use in the sport world?
  • remaining team progressed into the Super Sixes Why has this upper cases?
  • restricting England to just fourteen runs from her ten overs Why not using the number 14? I barely saw one number before the word "runs" written fully?
  • Not Build-up?

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks for the review, I think I have dealt with each of your points. I have made a number of other changes to the article, so do let me know if there is anything else. Harrias talk 19:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@CPA-5: Just checking if you've got anything more? Harrias talk 14:03, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • conference for the final. A reporter for the BBC Introduce BBC.
  • Our article is located "BBC", not "British Broadcasting Company", and much like CNN, it is better known by the initialism than the full name, so I have not made a change. Harrias talk 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • broadcast on the radio; ABC and the BBC provided joint coverage Same as above with ABC and BBC is here overlinked.

@Harrias: That's anything I've found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Thanks, and responded. Harrias talk 18:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

edit

Nb. It is my intention to claim points for this review for the WikiCup.

I have done a little copy editing which you will wish to check.

Background
  • Could we be told of the frequency of the event?
So how about something like "The inaugural Women's Cricket World Cup took place in XXXX and there had been ZZ editions prior to 2009"? Which I note you have already done.
  • "The 2009 tournament included eight teams" How were the eight selected?
  • Optional: Possibly a little more on the development and state of women's cricket to and at the time? And perhaps on the origin of the Women's World Cup? Just a sentence or two would help.
  • Could it be explained somewhere that the tournament was a series of one-day matches of xx overs per side?
Ha! Yes. The "statements of the bleeding obvious" are the ones no one bothers to write.
How do you feel about this statement from the source to be enough to cover it: "having won the 50-over World Cup in Australia just three months earlier"? It's a little weak, but about as good as I can find right now. Harrias talk 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the best the sources have, then it will do.
Route to the final
  • "with Australia 13 runs short by the Duckworth–Lewis method" I think that a very brief (please!) explanation of D-L is called for here.
  • "South Africa struggled in their chase" and scored how many?
  • "bowling action was reported to the International Cricket Council (ICC) as being potentially illegal" I suspect that this may puzzle non-aficionados, so maybe link "potentially illegal" to Bowling (cricket)#The bowling action?
  • "England won the match easily, bowling India out for 169; with Gunn and Holly Colvin each taking three wickets, and unbeaten half-centuries from both Atkins and Claire Taylor." Maybe relook at this sentence? It jars a little, and "and unbeaten half-centuries from both Atkins and Claire Taylor" seems a bit 'tacked on'.
Good.
  • "After the initial league stage, the bottom team from each group was eliminated" Might we be told which they were?
  • "granting themselves a 223 run victory" "granting"! Really? Perhaps 'giving'?
Build up
  • I would like to see a little more, not necessarily in this section, on non-local coverage. Was the match televised? In which countries? Ditto radio. Do we have information on the number of reporters at the actual match? Any not from the countries of the teams competing? You get the idea.
Fine.
Match
  • "with some degree of a recovery" I appreciate the search for variation in language but this sounds a bit tortured.
  • "England's middle order suffered their own collapse against the opposition spin bowlers Doolan and Mason, their scoring rate slowing significantly from 4.78 runs per over at the end of the fourteenth over to 3.58 twenty overs later." Either a full stop or semi colon after "Mason", or an 'and' before "their".
  • "though she did not actually hit the ball." Non-fans are definitely going to be scratching their heads at this. Why was she given out if she didn't hit the ball. How is it known for certain that this was the case? A footnote perhaps?
Fine.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath
  • "The ICC awarded England US$45,000 for their cup win" This reads as if it were an unexpected gratuity. Would something like 'England received the US$45,000 prize for winning the tournament' read better?
  • Link twelfth woman.
  • "the first team of either gender to be champions in all three cricketing formats" Perhaps a brief explanation, if only a footnote, of how they became test champions. Optional: An explanation of why no men's team had managed this in 165 years of international cricket.
    • Looking back at this, I'm not keen on it. Described England as Test champions is a stretch. Basically on they and Australia even played it; on the basis of having won the last Test between the pair, can we really call them Test champions? (The source does, but...) I'll probably take this out, but I want to mull on it. Harrias talk 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that that may happen.
Removed this. Harrias talk 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "was a one-day cricket match" Of which of the two forms covered by the link?
  • Otherwise the lead looks fine to me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: An array of replies await your further feedback. I know a couple are not yet done, but I am expecting follow-ups on some of the others, so might as well give myself more time to get going on any further tweaks. Harrias talk 19:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Ping me when you're ready. Meanwhile:
  • "who had initially not been included in the England team" Maybe 'in the England starting lineup/eleven'?
  • "there was still a growing gap between the top four teams" I'm not sure that "still" is necessary.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Some more responses. Nearly there (I hope), just got a query on the sourcing for the 50-overs thing. Harrias talk 13:25, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Let me know when/if you get anything on the number of overs. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Okay, added now. Harrias talk 13:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A nice piece of work. Covers all the criteria, and is an informative and flowing read. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

edit

I knew very little about this topic coming into it, and would like to offer the following comments:

  • Referring to a sport tournament as an "edition" sounds odd. Is this standard usage?
  • "Another large win, over Pakistan, guaranteed England finished as group winners." - the grammar is a bit off here
  • "Despite conditions conducive to swing bowling" - can you note what these conditions were? (the state of the ground and/or the weather?)
  • "provided their side with some degree of a recovery" - this seems needlessly imprecise
  • " The New Zealand Herald criticised the batting as being "indifferent",[38] but Richards credited England for their "tight bowling and fielding" to restrict New Zealand." - is the "but" here necessary? Both of these opinions could be correct.
  • "against the opposition spin bowlers Doolan and Mason" - "opposition" seems surplus here
  • Given that economy class is linked, business class should be as well.
    • I was avoiding it per MOS:LINKQUOTE: "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author. Where possible, link from text outside of the quotation instead – either before it or soon after." I figured the link to economy class would provide enough context. I can add it if you really think that it is necessary. Harrias talk 19:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the English vice-captain not initially selected to play?: this seems unusual Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing specific. I gather from some quotes they just picked the best team, and she wasn't in it, but I would feel uneasy including that without a source that specifically mentions it. Harrias talk 19:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough - the level of detail is pretty good given the amount of coverage Women's cricket received in this era (it gets modestly OK coverage in the Australian media now, but that's a new development) Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I have responded to each point above, let me know what you think. Harrias talk 19:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my comments are now addressed, but I'd suggest sorting out the issue noted above with linking economy and business class flights as you best see fit. I'm very pleased to support this fine article as a result. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro

edit

I haven't been too near here recently, but I just wanted to chip in here with a few points. Regarding the oppose of Fowler&fowler, I cannot see that "The article is all but unchanged since its last unsuccessful FAC five years ago", whatever the reviewer's opinion of such a nomination, is based on WP:WIAFA. The second reason to oppose based on the lead seems more reasonable, albeit easily fixed. On the third reason, sourcing, that is a non-starter I'm afraid. The sources listed may well be academic, but they are not about the 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final. Perhaps they would be appropriate in an article on women's cricket, or even on the whole 2009 tournament. But not necessarily here. Peter Davies, for example, writes almost exclusively about local recreational cricket; that has no relevance for this match. Not for the first time, F&F seems to want an article to be something that it is not: this is about one match, not women's cricket in general. The only valid argument I could make here is that we could perhaps have more on the reaction – we have a little on the celebrations, but could there be more? For example, did this win lead to increased participation in women's cricket in England? How did the public react to it?

Otherwise, the sourcing looks pretty good to me, and contains most of what I would expect (with the caveat that I'm not too knowledgable about women's cricket). I do wonder if there is anything more recent we could use? Have there been any retrospectives? Or discussions of it in interviews? I've a vague notion that Sarah Taylor might have talked about it fairly recently. Also, and I may be misremembering, did any of the team get honours for winning the tournament? I know a few of them like Charlotte Edwards have received honours, but I can't remember which wins it was for!

Two other points. It's quite good to have "non-cricketers" reviewing this because the match section could potentially be impenetrable to non-specialists (I don't know if it is or not because it makes perfect sense to me!) and at the very least I wonder if we could split the paragraphs to make them shorter. Having said that, it is a paragraph for each innings, which may be the best way to do it. Second, very minor, point: we call Isa Guha a spin bowler, which she wasn't. I haven't really looked at the prose, and this shouldn't be considered a full review, but I have no major concerns about this one. Sarastro (talk) 09:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks all for the comments; Sunday is a family day, so I'm unlikely to get to anything until tomorrow at the earliest. Fowler&fowler, you are right about the lead; I am notoriously bad at writing leads. In my defence for the minimal changes made to it, there was no specific criticism of the lead in the first review (other than a minor point that it was repetitive), so it wasn't an area that I looked too closely at when working through the comments from the first review. I concur with SchroCat and Sarastro1 that most of the sources you have listed give little more than a passing reference to either the 2009 World Cup, or the final itself. That said, Duncan was a glaring omission (I have that book on my shelf), and I will have a look through each of them (some of them I have looked through already) to check if they have any pertinent information. Harrias talk 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::Gee what a surprise, the pageant pile-on, or the CPR pile-on, can't decide which. If nothing else, this time, the article will have more than two reviewers, Harrias. I thank you for being more responsive to my review than most above. I will soon add quotes from all those books. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. I really hope we are still focusing on the article. I see your quotes, and note that not all of them relate to this match. But I'll be honest, I don't wish to get involved in another draining back-and-forth; I'd be appreciative if you could strike any comments not connected to the article that you have made on this page (including the one directly above which I assume refers to me). I am very close to taking this to WT:FAC and requesting some kind of restriction against you as this is not a sustainable way to go about things, but I'm not sure I have the energy to do so. Sarastro (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about you. I didn't realize it was in your section. I thought I was replying to Harrias. As for you, you are not accurate about the sources I am compiling. They are very much relevant to the background and the context. Not everything in the article has to be sourced precisely to the day of the final. If you do that you get nothing but poorly written ESPN articles, without bylines, written by the cub reporters and general staff, which comprise 24 of the 51 citations in the article. I will move the remarks above to my section. As for your threat to take me to WT:FAC, you are welcome to do so. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've been here before about background and context. I would respectfully suggest that these might be relevant for an article on the whole tournament, not for an article on one match. No-one said anything about "everything in the article has to be sourced precisely to the day of the final". Incidentally, your rather marvellously arrogant "poorly written ESPN articles, without bylines, written by the cub reporters and general staff" has just dismissed the main cricket reporting website out there; that's the place where the main cricket writers tend to hang out, perhaps more so than on newspapers. And the site that is hugely respected throughout the world. There are literally no better sources for cricket articles. But I'm sure you know that as you have researched so exhaustively. Oh look, now I'm getting personal as well... Thank you for permission to take you to WT:FAC, that is very kind. I'm currently compiling some evidence, and shall decide what to do with it later. Sarastro (talk) 15:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that much about cricket. But if the "main cricket writers" tend to "hang out" there, where are the articles by these writers? Why do the Cricinfo articles credit only "Cricinfo staff?" Why are the sportswriters being added slowly only to my list above, not to the article? See my Times list above. If you are compiling evidence. Please scour the article for intemperate language, not to mention personal attacks (e.g. "fuck off," "head up the backside, "blow smoke up your own sanctimonious backside," "second-rate behaviour substandard reviewers," etc etc) by others as well. I can compile evidence too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS Featured Article Criterion 1 (b) says, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;" How is the 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final being placed in context? The criterion says nowhere that finals of sports tournaments have special dispensations to have short two-paragraph leads that do not need to reflect article content and to get away with token references to how the final came to be the final, or how the teams came to be in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Background and Route to the Final sections both provide adequate context for this one, single match. Too much more would be bloating for the sake it. Many of the suggested additions from the suggested sources have nothing to do with this match, or with the context (even when broadly construed). That's why we have the article 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup. Context is one thing, but shovelling in any reference to the tournament (as opposed to this single match) would be grounds for an Oppose.

The lead. This is an entirely separate point to 1b, and the two should not be conflated. The nom has already stated that they will be re-working the lead, so there is no need to keep commenting on it, particularly in a skewed context. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear SchroCat Thank you for offering a new warrant for the claim that the article satisfies FAC criterion 1 (b). As you know, warrants have to be qualified by evidence. As for the evidence, please compare this page with the Featured Article 2003 Cricket World Cup Final whose pre-match and post-match sections are fully 600 words more luxuriant. The first section there is a summary of History of the Cricket World Cup, which the new warrant seems to be eschewing. Please also read the FA's 2017 [2] promotion. Contrast that with this FAC's first [3] and note Ian Rose's closing note of : "Closing comment -- I note Mkativerata's offer to revisit the oppose but even then we would not have the level of support required to keep this review open after running more than six weeks. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)" I am uncertain if Harrias contacted Mkativerata about the off-FAC work. Perhaps s/he can clarify with evidence thereof. Please also note the diff comparing the states of the article on March 28, 2015, and April 03, 2020 just before the onset (in Wiki page history) of the few hours of energetic edits that prefaced the second nomination. I do see that "England won by four wickets" was added to the infobox argument, "result:" but I am hard-pressed to find any full sentences (the smallest units of grammar) having been added to the article's text in the interim, which by then had constituted upward of five years. All this is very confusing to me, and at the very least calls for a new warrant, a novel general principle, to which reviewers can refer when reviewing. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
New warrant? WTF are you on about? (and please, don't bother answering - I'm not interested in the slightest about you inventing something that has no place at FAC)
You may like the 600 words of luxurient padding on the 2003 final article: I find the more efficient use of prose here covers the main points rather well. Opinions will, of course, differ, but some of the material you are pressing to be included is laughable (and it's not the first time we've seen you try to bloat out an article with something that is not germane.
Personally speaking, I don't give a toss what has happened in the article's history (seriously - what on earth is even vaguely important about it at all?) I tend to judge an article on its merits as it has been presented for the FAC. I've seen you whine about previous FACs before - all to no end. No-one gives a toss about how an article gets here, as long as the nominator has worked on it and can deal with the comments: it's here. Deal with what is here, not the history of it. You are here to judge an article based on WP:WIAFA, not some specious made up rubbish about the article's history. - SchroCat (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For Warrant (rhetoric), please read the Toulmin method; alternatively, you could consult, The Craft of Research. I hope this helps. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate for the hard of understanding: "please, don't bother answering - I'm not interested in the slightest about you inventing something that has no place at FAC". Again, you come up with something that has no place in an FAC review. Stick to WP:WIAFA and stop trying to reinvent the process to your own preference yet again. - SchroCat (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

edit

So here we are again -- snide comments mixed with potentially actionable suggestions, making it hard to decide where to collapse text. It would be great of course if everyone could redact their own unpleasantness. Anyway I'm going to try something:

  • All those who've registered explicit support or opposition for the article, pls refrain from any further comments for the moment. So Fowler&fowler, SchroCat, TRM, Cassianto, just take a break now.
  • Let the nominator deal with the comments by Gog the Mild, Nick-D, Casliber, CPA-5 and Sarastro1. He can also deal with F&F's actionable comments and if Harrias needs clarification on any of those he can ping F&F and F&F can respond specifically to the query.
  • Once Harrias has made his way through the outstanding comments we can see about making it a free-for-all again, with the admonishment that everyone pls deal with comments, not editors.

If anyone I've asked to take a break feels the need to discuss it with me, I'd prefer it on my talk page than here, as long as that doesn't become a venue for further review. Really though, the best acknowledgement of this would be to see those who've declared their positions move onto other things for the moment. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

edit

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable and of high quality for the topic. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add relevant content to the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. Links to websites all work. The referencing is clearly and consistently formatted. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to all be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/2009_Women%27s_Cricket_World_Cup_Final/archive2&oldid=959863548"