Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2009 Women's 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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final

 * Nominator(s): Harrias talk 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've walked these halls, but let's give it a whirl. My main area of concern with this article is how accessible it is to the layperson. The GA review, which was a while ago, was carried out by another editor with good knowledge of cricket. I think I at least have provided sufficient wikilinks to help with this, but I'll let you judge for yourselves. This is a potential WikiCup nomination. Harrias talk 21:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed and captioned. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support Comments from Jim
On first read through, this looks comprehensive and well written. Some comments follow Jimfbleak - talk to me?  12:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your comments; I've addressed the (easy) two, and will have a look at the others later, when I've got a bit more time! Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a lot of overlinking, particularly, but not exclusively, of players' names. I suggest running the script
 * Done, I think there is only one left, which I prefer to leave for clarity. Harrias talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * At least one ref, 33, lacks a publisher
 * Fixed this. Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the point of redlinking previous final contest in 1993.
 * I was hoping it would be a blue link by now, but I haven't got to it! Removing the red link from the lead, but left it in the later section. Harrias talk 13:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that either "top-scored" or "recovered the innings" are grammatical
 * I have replaced these, hopefully the replacements work! Harrias</b> talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No rush, it will give me time to find more nitpicks (: <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  16:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Despite losing regular wickets—I think you mean "Despite regularly losing wickets" <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  07:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Same with "Australia lost regular wickets" <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  07:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Good points, both changed. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You switch between numbers and words for wickets eg "205 for 5" but "201 for five". stick to one style <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  07:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice spot, it should all be consistent now. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 *  first team of either gender &mdash; "gender" applies to words, not people. Should be "of either sex" <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't know that. Fixed. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * No further queries, so I've changed to support above. Nice to see an article about women's sport, good luck <b style="font-family:chiller;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick first run-through comments from TRM The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The prose in the lead is somewhat repetitive, and I understand why, but repeating "women's cricket" three times in two sentences is a little too much for my taste.
 * I don't disagree, but I'm unsure what to do about this to be honest! <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * " first on foreign soil" isn't this a shade tabloid?
 * Modified. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Our article on Nicki Shaw has her as "Nicky Shaw". Plus be consistent.
 * Sorted; weirdly, I wasn't even aware it was sometimes spelt "Nicki", who knows what I was doing when I wrote that! <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Could link "toss" to coin flipping.
 * Linked to Toss (cricket). <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "scored the most runs for" would prefer "was the highest scorer for"
 * Changed as suggested. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Link ball to delivery (cricket).
 * Done. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it "Player of the Match", "player of the match" or "Man of the match"?
 * I think I have consistently used "player of the match" in the prose, although I appreciate that the infobox uses "Player of the Match". I'm not aware of "Man of the match" being used? <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Is "traditional rivals" a quote, it seems like it might be so quote it. If not, it's a little OR.
 * Personally I think it is a bit OTT to require inverted commas, but I have placed it within them nevertheless. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "of only 34 runs", "eased to a total " it's a tough one, but saying things like "only", "eased"....  turns this from an encyclopedic article into a sports report...
 * Journalese is a weakness of mine. Tweaked those examples. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Link "spin bowlers".
 * Linked. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "Marsh took a career-best five wickets" any thoughts on linking to a "Five-for" at the Glossary of cricket terms here?
 * Linked to Five-for (which redirects). <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider finding a link for "run-rate".
 * Linked to run rate. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "England's following match was against the West Indies, and they once again surpassed 200 runs after batting first." be careful with these sentences, I would suggest it's ambiguous who "they" are.
 * I see what you mean, but don't the sentences around it provide enough context to eliminate that ambiguity? <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * " the run scoring" why not stick with run rate?
 * Who knows, changed. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the "Build up" section, there's an odd selection of whether to link the year or not, final or not etc.
 * Removed the red link for 1993. The use of final or not makes sense to me, but I can stand to be corrected. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * New Zealand Herald should be The New Zealand Herald.
 * Fixed. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't add (ICC) after the first use of International Cricket Council.
 * Added. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 22:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Ref 23, "Wisden Cricketer's Almanack" should be "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack".
 * If these are the "quick first run-through" comments, I'm worried about the "thorough read-through" comments! <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 11:40, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, sorry. I know my cricket, and yet even I find some of the sentences and paragraphs impenetrable. The causes of the impenetrability are generally too much use of numbers, especially within the same sentence. Also, and this is fundamental, as it concerns comprehensiveness, which is more important than ptose: there are five paragraphs of prose about preliminary matters and only two on the match. Yet it is the latter that purports to be the subject of the article. Is there not more that can be said about the match? Do the FA criteria not require a greater degree of comprehensiveness? Venue? Crowd? Time of day? Weather? Umpires? [Yes, I know some of these are in the infobox and scorecard but a comprehensive overview would require details in the prose]. Some examples of prose/sourcing issues:
 * "In response, New Zealand began positively, and were boosted by a half-century from their captain, Tiffen, but the spin bowling of Edwards, Marsh and Colvin controlled the run rate, and New Zealand were eventually bowled out for 170, Edwards taking four wickets." - That's quite an amount of work for one sentence to do.
 * "New Zealand were drawn in Group A of the competition, along with the West Indies, South Africa and their "traditional rivals" Australia." - Where are these quotes from?
 * "Prior to the start of the competition, Jenny Roesler of Cricinfo suggested England and New Zealand, along with Australia, as the favourites to win the competition. The final was a repeat of the 1993 final, when England won at Lord's." - We jump here from a pre-tournament prediction to the tournament final, which is a huge leap for the reader. Should the former sentence be earlier in the article?
 * "New Zealand set a record partnership for the second wicket in women's ODIs in their final match" - the reader immediately wants to know, "against whom?" yet doesn't find out for another three sentences.
 * Are live ball-by-ball commentaries reliable sources for FA standards? ? Look at the work that footnote 25 is being asked to perform; it is surely too much.
 * Cheers. --Mkativerata (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your review Mkativerata. I always thought that comprehensiveness could be an issue, but until an article comes to FA itself, this is often hard to discern for sure. I can work on any prose issues, and integrate a bit more of the information presented in the infobox and scorecard into the prose, but the unfortunate fact is, women's cricket is no subject to much coverage, even for a World Cup final! Without adding irrelevant "padding", I can't really see any way of significantly extended the match summary, and in fact, if the reliability of the ball-by-ball coverage is questioned for FA, then it would have to be shortened. I am more than willing to put in work if you think the article can eventually reach FA standards within those confines, but if you feel that will permanently prevent it from achieving the required standard, then I can accept that. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 11:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I think this is one of those articles that is pretty much incapable of ever being an FA. There are only some articles that are capable of meeting both criteria 1b and 1c; for others, the high-quality sources just aren't there or are there in insufficient quantity to make the article fully comprehensive. You're probably 98% there in terms of making the article as good as it can be, but even 100% would fall short. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There's no reason why an article of this length and comprehensiveness, using quality sources like Cricinfo should be prevented from becoming an FA.  Unless, of course, we really want to start reinforcing the idea that minority sports or sports for women are automatically precluded because the coverage isn't as thorough as that of the men's game.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is every reason. The criteria tell us that the article must "neglect no major facts or details". This one does: the account of a six or seven hour match is very brief, and there is no information in the prose about the venue, crowd, weather, umpires, etc. The criteria also tell us that the artcle is to have "high-quality reliable sources". A Cricinfo article may well meet that description; ball-by-ball coverage is a different matter. I'm well aware that my views on the capacity of this article to meet the FA criteria are an indirect consequence of bias in the coverage of women's cricket. But so it must be. We can't turn a blind eye to our generally applicable FA criteria to account for that bias. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is no reason. Discussing a six or seven hour match or even a five day match in the "comprehensiveness" you seem to be seeking would become a turgid and unreadable morass of text.  If the key points are highlighted, and in particular with cricket, that's never ever going to be down to a ball-by-ball-by-blow account, an article shouldn't be summarily dismissed as never being able to achieve featured status.  I am, however, interested by the fact that there seems a clear indicator here that minority and women's sports events such as this are being described as impossible to hit FA.  Probably worthy of wider discussion.  Do you know what the shortest FA is?  I'd be fascinated to know.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably Tropical Depression Ten (2005). <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 08:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added some more detail on the venue and similar as requested. I haven't addressed the other concerns as yet, but with these additions, are some of your concerns regarding comprehensiveness alleviated? <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 12:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll re-visit my oppose over the next day or so. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing comment -- I note Mkativerata's offer to revisit the oppose but even then we would not have the level of support required to keep this review open after running more than six weeks. I'll therefore be archiving it shortly and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.