Template:Did you know nominations/India women's national cricket team record by opponent


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

India women's national cricket team record by opponent

 * ... that in Women's One Day International cricket, India has the fourth highest number of victories? Source: ESPNcricinfo
 * Reviewed: To follow Nannie C. Dunsmoor

5x expanded by Vensatry (talk). Self-nominated at 15:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg not an expert of cricket, but I had to read more time the hook to understand it... maybe changing it slightly? like "that in Women's One Day International cricket contest, India has the fourth highest number of victories?" is it a contest? or maybe event? it just seems the hook is missing a word to make it more understandable. Elisa.rolle (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, a comma was missing. Contest would mean tournament - WODI is a format of the game. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 18:57, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Symbol confirmed.svg admitting again I'm no cricket expert, therefore I accept explanation, and the comma makes a difference in the reading flow. Hook seems fine to me, I, indeed, clicked on it to understand better. Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg With all due respect to the reviewer, I have to say that this review doesn't really indicate whether most of the DYK standards have been met. The review says that the hook is acceptable, but it doesn't address the quality of the article. If the nominator doesn't mind, I'd be happy to pitch in and take a thorough look at this one, having seen enough cricket articles at the various processes to know what to expect.  Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, no issues. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg The article was expanded within the past few days and the expansion was just over 5x (from 375 characters to 1,908). The article is well-cited and well-formatted throughout, and the hook fact is adequately supported by its citations. Checks of references 4, 6 (the hook cite), 7, and 10 revealed no verifiability or close paraphrasing problems. With the QPQ done, a hook that meets the guidelines, and no apparent issues, this looks go to go. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 01:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)