Talk:Pakistani cricket team in Ireland in 2018/GA1

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

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 08:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Otherwise this is a really good and detailed article. I think it already meets the GA criteria, so my concerns above are really just the spit-and-polish which would get it ready for something even more impressive, like FAC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As a rule of thumb (for me), I seldom reference facts in the lead. Direct quotes, sure, but not the facts, because they're supposed to be also mentioned in the main body and can be expanded upon (and referenced) there.
 * "11 – 15 May" unspaced en-dash.
 * "and with Ireland's Kevin O'Brien named" just me perhaps, but linking this with "and" seems odd considering O'Brien played on the losing side.
 * In fact, I would remove the quotes from the lead and leave them to the main section, perhaps have an "aftermath" or "reactions" section?
 * "The ICC confirmed the fixture during" for completeness here, I would re-state that the ICC confirmed that a single Test match would be played between the two teams rather than just "confirmed the fixture".
 * "ith The Village, Malahide " comma after Malahide.
 * "Sri Lanka won both matches in the two-match series" a touch tautological, maybe drop "two-match"?
 * I understand why you strike through Nathan Smith, but for the sake of completeness, probably worth adding a footnote to the table saying something like "Ruled out through injury".
 * "Boyd Rankin took Ireland's first wicket in" bit too SEAOFBLUE for me.
 * "forty-fourth" a little odd for me, I think you might be okay per MOSNUM, but I'd stick with 44th.
 * "three or four day match" -> "three- or four-day match".
 * Replace spaced hyphens with spaced en-dashes in reference titles.
 * Any images of the key players that could be used sparingly to brighten the article up?


 * - I think I've fixed everything here. I'm happy with the lead having sources, and have left it as it is. Is that a deal-breaker for the GA? Please could you also check the formatting I've added for the footnote for Nathan Smith and if the images are OK to use. Thanks again!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * no no, not at all, none of the comments were really deal-breakers, just thinking to the future. I'll take one more look and let you know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * okay, this is going to annoy you I guess... I think you trimmed the lead down a little too much, and your comments about the women's Test appear in the lead and only in the lead, that should be expanded upon in the main body strictly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)


 * - I did think the lead was too short when I re-jigged the order of the reactions, etc. I've now made expanded this a little, moved all the references out of that section, and added a bit about the womens' Test in the background section. How does that look now?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * All good for me, passing. Let me know if you want to repeat the feat with any other similarly excellent articles.  The Rambling Man (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow! Thank you!  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)