Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final/archive2

TFA blurb review
Congratulations, and please check back at the end of June for the blurbs. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final was a Women's One Day International cricket match between England and New Zealand, played on 22 March at the North Sydney Oval in Australia. It was the second time that the two teams had met at this stage of a World Cup – England had won their previous final contest in 1993. This game was the culmination of the 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup, the ninth edition of the tournament. England, who were considered the favourites, built an opening partnership of 74 runs and continued to score steadily. Despite regularly losing wickets, they won by four wickets with 23 balls to spare. This World Cup title was their first in 16 years, their third overall, and their first outside England. Nicky Shaw, a bowler who replaced the injured Jenny Gunn in England's starting lineup minutes before the game started, took a career-best four wickets for 34 runs and was named player of the match.

Just a suggested blurb ... thoughts and edits are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 14:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Off topic
-- A shining example of how not to do grammar, and a more contemptible comment you'll be hard pushed to find. Repetitive adverbs, a failure to eliminate ambiguity in order to stress a point, and the brazen ability to blow smoke up your own sanctimonious backside. Quality. You really do rate yourself, don't ? Here we have an editor who has clearly named themselves after one of our greatest wordsmiths, but actually, judging on the above comment, their grasp of the English language is more akin to her instead.  Cassianto Talk  07:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mean, "hard-pressed to find?" It is the older and more common expression. Adverbials, or adjuncts, are not the same as adverbs.  Assonance and alliteration are not the same are repetition.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There were two Fowlers, both male. Brothers they were.  Neither was a "wordsmith," by the way.   Shakespeare was, the editors of King James Version were, Milton was, and more recently, Henry James, Stevenson, and Kipling were, the latter taken to task by the Fowlers, in several places, if you've read their book(s).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * When several people have criticised your approach to the review and the comments you've made, it's probably advisable not to be a complete smartarse in response. - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)