Talk:2003 Cricket World Cup final/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Relentlessly (talk · contribs) 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this over the next few days. Relentlessly (talk) 21:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking up the review. Think I've addressed most of the prose-related concerns. I do agree that the tone of the article is a little India-centric (being an Indian I literally cried after the match). I'll add some more stuff and make sure that it looks balanced. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 19:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the "Build-up" and "Aftermath" sections. Please have a look at it now. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK,, this is a big improvement. I've done . A few remaining things:
 * You refer to Zaheer Khan as "Khan". Am I wrong in think that he is normally referred to as "Zaheer"?
 * The second sentance of "Summary" duplicates part of "build-up".
 * I still think "a little unususally" is borderline OR. You need a source that describes the particular decision as unusual, rather than one that describes the general principle. The one book you have in "Sources" is also a bit odd, given that it's a source for just one sentence rather than for the whole article.
 * "The pressure on Tendulkar, the tournament's top-scorer, was too high as the fans had a lot of expectations." This is not NPOV. To say it was high (as you do in "Build-up") is fine; to say it's "too" high is a particular POV. I think you can remove that sentence.
 * There is some inconsistency about "was" and "were". Early on and later on you say "Australia was" but in the middle you say "India were". You need to be consistent.
 * You cannot put "backfire" as a direct quotation when it isn't one. Both sources use it as a verb: you need to say something like:
 * Ganguly's decision to bowl first was criticized by the media; the New York Times, for instance, said it "backfired horribly".
 * You have not provided any citations for the circumstances surrounding the renewal of John Wright's contract. Perhaps this article? Maybe also this one?
 * This is getting there; just a few things to clear up now. Relentlessly (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

All done I think. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , this looks good. The only remaining point (a fairly trivial one) is about Zaheer's name. Cricinfo and the BBC both refer to him as Zaheer, but I don't know enough about Indian names to have the confidence to be bold and fix this myself. Do you have any thoughts? Relentlessly (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I missed this one. Per WP:LASTNAME, we are advised to use the last name after the first occurrence. The guideline, however, is missing an Indian perspective. I'm open to use Zaheer as in the case of Harbhajan and Yuvraj. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 18:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , I don't think LASTNAME applies here, but I'm not going to get excited about it. All my significant concerns are taken care of, so pass. Well done! Relentlessly (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)