Wikipedia:Peer review/2003 Cricket World Cup Final/archive1

2003 Cricket World Cup Final
This peer review discussion has been closed. A recently promoted GA which I'd like to make an FA. I've no clue as to how to proceed further since we don't have a model FA in WP:CRIC. We do have FAs on Test matches (Ashes) but the degree of comprehensiveness is subject to vary much for a One-day game. Suggestions pertaining to improvement of prose are most welcome. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 14:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: I'm afraid real life is hectic right now, and I haven't time right now for a full review. Just a few general pointers if you want this to succeed at FAC.
 * More on the background to the tournament: e.g. favourites, changes to the format, form players, expectations. Obviously not in huge depth, but assume that your reader knows nothing, and don't expect them to follow links: give them a brief but authoritative overview.
 * More on the teams: who was in form in the tournament? Who was taking wickets/scoring runs for them? Try to make it more of an overview, and less of a list of results. (Maybe something like the Wisden summary of the tournament does)
 * Where would all these go into? Should I create a section like "Background"? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Final section reads too much like a journalistic cricket report; we need to make it more friendly for the non-specialist.
 * As an example of a superb model to follow (although is comes from a really famous game), maybe look at the structure and detail of the FA Heidi Game.
 * I'll try and have a proper look as soon as possible; I can't really help too much right now, although I'll certainly give it at least a copy-edit before it goes to FAC; but my advice would be get it right first and don't rush. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm not in a hurry. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias: Overall my thoughts are similar to : the article needs to be rebalanced slightly. I'll go through section by section giving an overview, but until the broad strokes are sorted, I won't go into depth with a prose review.
 * The lead could probably stand to be expanded. Given the length of the article, I was slightly surprised that the lead was so short. One paragraph summarising the context of the match (ie, the tournament, location and similar) and another providing a summary of the match would seem appropriate.
 * I'll come to the lead later &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I quite like the format section, I think it might be worth clarifying the specific format of the matches in here too, ie 50 overs. (Given that historically ODIs haven't always been 50 overs).
 * Included the 50-overs bit. Do you think, I should rename the section as "Background" so that I can include things which are pointed out by Sarastro1? &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, yes. Harrias talk 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, far too much information is provided on the semi-finals; I don't think that they deserve much more coverage than the other matches played by the two teams to be honest. I certainly wouldn't include the scorecards. As Sarastro1 suggests, this section would be improved by providing more of an overview; who was doing well, who wasn't, how group positions were affected, as well as brief summaries of each match.
 * I wonder if more information might be available for the "Build up" section, I imagine there must have been quite a few previews written, though how accessible they all are I don't know!
 * Do you have some offline sources for this. &mdash; Vensatry (ping) 20:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, ping me if I forget. Harrias talk 12:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * More context on the final would be nice in the summary: what time of day was it played, how was the weather, the attendance? Without going over the top, some "critical comment" (quotes from ex-cricketers or journalists) might be useful in the summary. I think, given the article is about the final, the summary could probably go into a little bit more detail, if that information is available.
 * The aftermath section could include brief information on how the teams have fared in tournaments since. Harrias talk 12:04, 10 June 2015 (UTC)