Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2003 Cricket World Cup Final/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2017.

2003 Cricket World Cup Final

 * Nominator(s): &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about the final of the 2003 Cricket World Cup, played between Australia and India. After taking this to GA in April 2015, I spent several months shaping the required moulds to reach this level. This has had two peer reviews and the concerns raised by the reviewers have been fully met. I believe the article is in good shape and now meets the criteria. This is my first FAC in this topic. Look forward to comments and suggestions. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 18:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support from Jim. I commented on this in detail at PR, and I can't see any new issues Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:43, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jim, for your comments and support. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "one-handed six", etc.: I'm not taking a position on cricket jargon. Some is fine, but you probably don't need as much as you use.
 * Removed &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "criticize": I'm not clear on what spelling you're using. There are some cases of -ise and some -ize.
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the copyedits and support, Dank. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: I'm recusing as coordinator for this one. This seems in good shape, and I'm leaning support, but I'd like a few more non-cricketers to check this for jargon. I've also a few little points I'd like to see addressed as well. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It may be worth a section somewhere that explains the match format for the uninitiated: 50 overs before the innings closes, restrictions on where fielders can be placed, no bowler to bowl more than 10 overs.
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As we go into a little detail about Australia's team, it may be worth mentioning India too, even if it is just "In contrast, India's players remained available..." or something similar.
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Are we going with a team as singular or as plural: we have both "Australia was" and "Australia were". Either would be acceptable, but consistency is the most important thing here.
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * ""Australia must not win" was the "out cry" among most of them.": This is a strange little sentence, which I think should either be cut, or replaced with "Most of them supported India".
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "Pakistan's Imran Khan said, "Dice in India's favour."": While this is what the source says, this just sounds odd. I'd reword it as "The former Pakistan captain Imran Khan believed India to be favourites".
 * Rephrased &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * "With just two fielders outside the circle": This needs clarifying, but could be done in the section about the match format.
 * Done as suggested &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The part in the aftermath about Duckworth Lewis seems misplaced; was this said after the final or before it? If the latter, it would be better in the build up section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it belongs to the 'Aftermath' section. It was only after the final (where Aus made 350+) that it was observed that the 'standard' edition was a little problematic for matches involving big totals. Our article explains this reasonably well. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

A few more points: Almost there I think. Just a few last points. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Wisden overview of the tournament mentions that India's players were in dispute with the board over contracts until shortly before the tournament. I think this is worth including.
 * Added &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that Tendulkar's autobiography is the best source for burning the players in effigy.
 * Replaced &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a glitch in the scorecard: the symbols for captain and wicketkeeper do not seem to have been put into the table correctly.
 * Fixed &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure about the DL section in the aftermath. The main citation is to the 2003 Wisden report, but this does not mention the final at all, but just the way that South Africa were eliminated. And the other source used, the Scandals and Controversies book, does not seem to have this information on the page cited (although I might be missing it). Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed the criticism part. But still retaining the latter half as it adds come context to the final. Switched to chapter name to avoid confusion. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Support with a heavy copy-editing disclaimer: I think this is pretty much there now. Again, I'd like non-cricketers to have a look at this as I may have overlooked something! If no-one else gets to the source review, I'll do that this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sarastro1, your comments at the PR and here are much appreciated. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Has come together nicely. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Casliber, thanks for the support. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 06:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments – I was asked for a review on my talk page. Having commented already at the most recent peer review, I re-read the article and came up with the following points:
 * "The final was Australia's 17 consecutive ODI win". "17" should be "17th".
 * Format: "according to the standard rules of an One Day International." "an" → "a"?
 * Build-up: "were completely sold out immediately India entered the Super Sixes stage." Needs "after" or another appropriate word before India, I think.
 * Summary: Minor, but there should be a "the" in "For umpires".
 * Aftermath: Is the "we don't think that we are the best side, but it is the way we play the game" a direct quote? If so, it needs quotation marks; if not, it need a re-write. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 22:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As for the last point, I've reinstated the quote as the construct follows a direct speech. Fixed the rest. Thanks for the comments. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – All of the fixes look good. Nice work on the article, which meets the FA criteria after all of the work that has gone into it. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 21:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments at the PR and here, Giants2008. &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 02:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Coord notes -- I think we probably just need image and source reviews now; you can leave requests at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Done &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 08:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

image and source review

 * Images all appropriately licenced. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Footnotes all consistently formatted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FN 22 & 23 support material in text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FN 66 supports material in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FN 31 supports material in text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Earwig's clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sourcing looks reliable. I think we are good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Casliber, thanks &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 11:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.