Talk:Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/GA1

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

I'll be reviewing this article shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:


 * Just a note, but if this goes to FAC, you'll need to make the link titles conform to the MOS in regards to the uppercase bits in some of them. Nothing to worry about for GA, I merely point it out. (so I don't have to at FAC...)
 * Since this is GA, I'm not going to expect a lot of explanation for the non-initiatied for the cricket terms, but perhaps some wikilinking so that jargon is at least somewhat available? I noted "scoring a hard-hitting 50 not out", "won by an innings" "20 overs" "wicket" and that's just in the first paragraph of the main body. (grins). Linkage would be helpful.
 * Sixth paragraph of early matches, does the first sentence really need five citations? I noted several other spots in the text where three, four, five citattions are piled up, are they necessary?
 * All in all these are quibbles, and I have no problem passing this for GA. I suggest finding a non-cricket fan for some help before FAC, as the jargon is a bit daunting without more explanation of what exactly is going on. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

ACtually, for the cites yeah, to compare the listings of the different matches. As for the WLs, yes. For the Tests, if that's what you mean, there is a WP:CRIC to capitalise the T, basically all cricket texts do this.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model! ) 02:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The link titles issue is the all capitals/uppercase bits in the link titles, that's what it is. Such as "First Test Match ENGLAND v AUSTRALIA"... the ENGLAND and AUSTRALIA need to be England and Australia. Just the way the MOS wants things. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)