Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/West Indian cricket team in England in 1988/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review | West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

West Indian cricket team in England in 1988

edit

Both User:Dweller and I have put a lot of work into the article to get it to GA. The article failed to achieve GA status once, and we took some advice on-board. I just want to get i's dotted and t's crossed here to ensure GA. The Rambling Man 11:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to that, I'd also be interested in some general advice on what would be needed to aim for FA status, other than the obvious problem we've encountered with images, that is not an obstruction for GA. --Dweller 12:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seegoon

edit

Here are my thoughts:

  • I'd change "7" to "seven", and do so throughout the article at your discretion.
  • I'm not sure I like the title "Introduction" - it sounds a little lifeless. Maybe "Background", or something more creative. I don't really know what to suggest, but it struck me as not quite hitting the target.
  • You have spaces before references 4, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14... I think you need to check them all to see how many are like this.
  • Be careful to use jargon without explaining it; for instance, you don't wikilink or explain "ODI".
  • "they had endured a stormy tour of Pakistan" - the tone here isn't 100% encyclopaediaic, or however the hell you spell it. Plus; the word "endured" has connotations of bravery and courage, which makes it sound a little POV. Again, "torments" runs the same risk. It doesn't bother me so much as it would bother a FA voter.
Comment - Thanks. I'll take a look at this, although we have sourced references to the diplomatic row. I'll cite Qadir's bowling figures. --Dweller 09:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Done. --Dweller 10:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the last paragraph of "Introduction" probably needs citation.
  • "Contextually, cricket is inherently a conservative game" - sounds a little biased and OR-ish to me. Try something a little more neutral, like "Traditionally, captains of international teams are not changed frequently". Plus, the section on captains between '77 and '88 could do with citation.
Comment Done the OR. The captains have a link to our (featured!) list of English test captains. Is that insufficient? --Dweller 11:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With such a huge margin of victory and such a poor performance, England (and Emburey) were strongly criticised." - needs citation.
  • "...later in 1988, in which Gooch achieved his first victory as captain." - I think you could safely change "Gooch" to "he".
  • Wikilinking "incumbent" might help - I didn't know what this term meant until quite recently.
Comment Not sure about that. It's not a sporting term and our article doesn't really add much. Seems a little patronising to add a link to Wiktionary. Anyone else have a thought about this? --Dweller 09:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope some of this has helped. As a rule of thumb for things to do, check all bold statements are cited. Anything like "praised" or "criticised" needs a source, and a reputable one at that. Secondly, ensure no citations have a space between them and the preceding word or punctuation. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly (in terms of GA), check to see that everything is understandable to the layman. Whoever wrote this clearly has a wide-ranging vocabulary and a clear grasp of cricketing lexicon, but not every reader will. Bear that in mind. Seegoon 17:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tintin's comments

edit
  • There are some long and complex lines. For eg,
    • (1) The two lines starting with Before this, they had endured a stormy tour of Pakistan ...
    • (2) The team had performed well to reach the World Cup Final ... is held together by two commas and doesn't read well.
Comment - done both. --Dweller 11:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (3) Contextually is redundant in that context, I think.
Comment - done. --Dweller 11:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - good point. Now covered.

Thanks, I'll take a look. --Dweller 09:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now all done. Thank you. --Dweller 12:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as Cowdrey replacing Emburey, the selectors also dropped Paul Downton, Martyn Moxon, Mike Gatting, David Capel, Phil Defreitas and John Childs in favour of Neil Foster, Tim Curtis, Bill Athey, Robin Smith, Jack Richards, and Derek Pringle. Apart from Pringle, they were all new faces, .. - What does "new faces" mean here (as something that makes Pringle different from the rest) ? Tintin 10:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that myself. I'll find out. --Dweller 11:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another light copyedit - they had not played in the series before. Only Curtis and Smith were on debut. I have explained this. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALoan's comments

edit

Generally, pretty good, and not too far from an FA for me, but it needs a good end-to-end copyedit. By way of example:

  • From the first paragraph of the lead:
    • "...a number of first-class matches..." - surely we know how many!
    • "They enjoyed tremendous success..." - surely we can link "they" as "West Indian cricket team"
    • "...their hosts endured..." - their hosts being the England cricket team, presumably, rather than the county teams that they played?
Comment All done. The first was a placeholder that hilariously has survived this long! --Dweller 11:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great - these were just examples, by the way - the whole thing needs a read. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Easier if that's done by someone who's not written it - your assistance is welcomed! :-) --Dweller 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the second paragraph
    • "The" in "...The Wisden Trophy..." surely does not need a capital "T".
Comment - I'm inclined to agree, but our article uses it capitalised. We should be consistent. Anyone? --Dweller 12:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like it but almost all trophies and cups too have the first letter of each word capitalised in the article titles. Tintin 12:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps I was not clear enough - I think "Wisden Trophy" is a proper noun and deserves its capitals, but the "The" does not. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I'm daft sometimes. I'll amend. --Dweller 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad you found someone actually calling it "the summer of four captains" (I hope they did not use us as a source for that usage!). The quote from 1995 - "It was the summer of four captains, four defeats, disgrace and disarray" - may be worth repeating.
  • In the infobox, dates need wikilinking to activate reader preferences.
Comment these were unlinked, further to the automated peer review comments. --Dweller 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I respectfully disagree - different readers will have different date preferences, and linking them is the only way to make that work. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as you're a human (and a pretty nice one at that) I'm sure I can give your opinion greater weighting! Consider it done. (It will be) --Dweller 13:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you find a reference to cite for England winning only 7 out of 52 Tests, and West Indies "approaching the end of nearly ten years as the best Test team in world cricket"
Comment I think the latter is already there. I'll look for the former. --Dweller 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • there seems to be a bit of POV - "temendous success", "endured", ...
  • The squad templates do not display properly for me - why are there line breaks after Curtis and Greenidge? And some &nbsp; may be helpful to avoid breaking in odd places. Perhaps bullets (•) would be better than pipes (|) to separate people.

Good luck! -- ALoan (Talk) 10:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, some excellent, pointed comments. This'll take a little time to work through. The GA nomination has been waiting for some time and I hope it'll pass even if we haven't finished these. When they're done, I'll apply for FA. --Dweller 10:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have had a go at copyediting, but I am sure there are still things that could be polished. I had some conflicts, and have tried to put back what was added. It is looking really good, IMHO. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnlp's comments

edit

A few slightly random thoughts on what is really a very good read. Hope they're not too late.

  • I think the heading "Background" is weak, and would like a section perhaps entitled "The West Indian cricket team" that does the job that this section does of explaining the changes in the West Indies side, the tour party and its perceived weaknesses. Perhaps there should also then be a section on "The English cricket team". Or combine the two in a section called "The two teams" outlining personnel and recent records.
  • Botham. Was injured all season. Not the player he had been, but still a loss. Perhaps worth mentioning.
    • I'm on it. --Dweller 11:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've reviewed his career stats on Cricinfo. I'd find it difficult to make much of it. Wisden's report doesn't mention it and he was a shadow of his former self by then and only played a handful more games, mostly in the equally shudder-inducing English summer of 1989. I'm going to continue to leave him out, but of course it's subjective. Happy for anyone to disagree. --Dweller 13:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tried to find a citation as well but failed... perhaps best to leave it out for now, unless someone can cite us something concrete. The Rambling Man 14:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODI series was before the Test series and England won it very easily. The chronology is not clear in the article and is probably quite important, in that ODI success suggested England stood a good chance in the Tests. Perhaps the ODIs should be short separate preamble section before the Test coverage?
  • The "Aftermath" section is all about the English aftermath, not about the West Indies and whether they were able to sustain the success.
  • There were 17 players in the West Indies squad and it seems a bit harsh to omit the one who didn't play Tests or ODIs, David Williams, the second string wicketkeeper (who played both Tests and ODIs later).
  • A bit of context: in 1966, West Indies beat England 3-1, England had three captains and used 24 players (one more than 1988!). The selectorial confusion was very similar (and Peter May was a selector each time). In 1988, had Chris Cowdrey not been injured between the 4th and 5th Tests, it's pretty likely that he would have captained at The Oval because the series was well lost by then: you'd have then had the Summer of Three Captains (Mark II). The "Summer of Four Captains" line (though neat) is a bit ex post facto: from memory, selector confusion was the feature throughout the season, from well before the time when we knew how many captains England were going to have!

Told you these were random thoughts. Ignore or use as you will. Good luck with the GA bid: whatever happens, you've created a splendid piece. Johnlp 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth mentioning Phil Simmons horrific injury, hit on the head by Gloucestershire's David Lawrence at Bristol when he was not wearing a helmet?[1] Done, fab, thanks The Rambling Man 16:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC) And some background to Gatting's dismissal here More background added, and a quote, thanks! The Rambling Man 17:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC). -- ALoan (Talk) 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/West_Indian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1988/archive1&oldid=192778746"