Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Cricket
WikiProject
Lead article talk
Portal talk
Root category talk
Main project page talk
 → Featured material
 → Notability guidelines
 → Style guide
 → Quiz
Announcements and open tasks
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → To-do list talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
Article assessment talk
Reviews talk
Media talk
Images talk
edit · changes
Shortcuts:
WP:CRICR
WP:CRICREV


The review department of WikiProject Cricket is the project's main forum for conducting detailed reviews (both formal and informal) of particular articles and other content within its scope.

The department hosts two forms of review internal to the project:

It also provides a convenient collection of cricket content currently undergoing featured content reviews outside the project:

Contents

[edit] Peer review

Shortcuts:
WP:CRICR#PEER
WP:CRICPR
Instructions
Requesting a review
  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject Cricket}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of peer review requests below.

If an article is listed for a second (or third, and so forth) peer review:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing peer review subpage {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} to an archive {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1}}.
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above: editing {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/Name of nominated article}}, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new request page.
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the request: e.g. "Prior peer review {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1|here}}".
Transcluding a review from another location
  1. Add peer-review=yes to the {{WikiProject Cricket}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "request has been made" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the review of your article.
  3. Add #REDIRECT [[External peer review page location]] to the page.
  4. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of peer review requests below.
Commenting

Everyone is encouraged to comment on any request listed here. To comment on an article, please add a new section (using ==== Your user name ====) for your comments, in order to keep multiple responses legible.

Archiving

Reviews should be archived after they have been inactive for some time, or when the article is nominated as a featured article candidate. To archive a review:

  1. Replace peer-review=yes with old-peer-review=yes in the {{WikiProject Cricket}} project banner template at the top of the article's talk page
  2. Move {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Peer review/Name of nominated article}} from this page to the current peer review archive page.
edit
Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Geoffrey Boycott

Hoping to put this up for FAC when all the issues are sorted. Just completed a copy edit, and would like to know what more work needs to be done. Thanks SGGH speak! 13:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

On a very quick look, it seems a very good article. I did notice a typo in citation 75, where the "y" is missing from "Geoffrey". I think that the article would benefit from a photo of Boycott at the start, right after the infobox. Did he actually write the books that appeared under his name, or were they ghosted? JH (talk page) 19:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe they were ghosted. I got his Bloody Paradise one from the library many years back and I'm sure he collaborated with some guy at The Sun or wherever. Although I don't recall a bimbo on page three. BlackJack | talk page 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
A few more points. "Test" should be capitalised. There are five Wisden Cricketers of the Year each year, so it should be "a" rather than "the". As for his occupying the crease "sometimes for days", I'm not sure that even Boycott ever batted through two or more whole days, so I'd delete the phrase.
He did, and he once batted one every day of a test match. I have addressed the test->Test issue, and the "a" SGGH speak! 08:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comments from the random reading of sections

I guess I should add my usual disclaimer here. Several of the comments are opinions and may not be worth acting upon, in which case feel free to skip them. Tintin 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • After a low scoring series of warm up matches, he hit 73 in the opening test, and another 76 in the fourth, averaging 46.99 and taking three wickets with the ball by the end of England's unsuccessful tour - why unsuccessful
    • They were defeated, I'll make this more clear. SGGH speak! 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Wait. My point was that England did not lose the series. We are talking about the 1964-5 tour to South Africa here and England won that 1-0. It was the return series in 1965 that England lost. Btw, Boycs also hit a 117 in the fifth Test. Tintin 09:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Ahh I see, okay I'll fix that. SGGH speak! 10:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speculation arose over his place, and after a duck and a two hour and twenty minute long 16 he was dropped and replaced by Eric Russell. - not enough context (third Test, I guess). (Btw, it is 2:20 as per Wisden, but 1:50 according to CI)
  • I have added a bit of context, but there isn't too much, it already has his scores and things, I have just added what Wisden thought of his knock. SGGH speak! 12:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • He hit a form of "brighter cricket" during the first and second tests, hitting a high score of 84 and taking wickets with the ball. - 84 in 4 hours and 234 balls. Not a good example for bright cricket
  • Fixed, better explained. SGGH speak! 12:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Boycott's highest Test score of 246* came against India in June 1967 on his home ground of Headingley, but he was dropped for the next match for slow scoring and selfish attitude. - Considering that almost all the Test innings upto this point has found a mention, the circumstances and controversy over the 246* deserves more space.
  • A back injury in 1967 forced Boycott to miss half the season, and an average of 32 against the Australians during the ashes was unspectacular with Boycott not once passing 50. Domestically, his injury also limited his contribution, however he did hit five centuries before he was forced to stop playing in June. -

there is apparently a change of season here from 1967 to 1968 but the reader is not informed.

  • While he was left out of the first three tests against the World XI, he played in the fourth and scored 15 and 64, and in the summer final of the competition scored 157. - 157 was in the final Test of the series, not summer final of the competition
    • Sorted.
  • Till this point, almost every Test innings gets a mention but there is nothing much else. Would be good to add more meat to it, even otherwise, it is probably better to skip the insignificant matches and series altogether than mentioning the scores.


  • and his slowest scores, with strike rates in the low 40s, remain par with the slowest strike rates of Michael Atherton (36.9 at Edgbaston in 1998) and Tim Robinson (27.2 at Old Trafford in 1987). - this is a very arbitrary comment and random choice of innings. What is the point being made here ?
    • I didn't choose the innings. McKinstry does, I have attributed the comments to him.
  • Peter Lever also spent an entire evening discussing with Boycott his vulnerability when playing the hook stroke, with which he was to get out on more than one occasion.[22] - out of context in the place where this is included Tintin 02:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Supposed to illustrate his technique and any issues with it, in keeping with the rest of the paragraph, but I agree it is a little out of place, shall I just say he was vulnerable to getting out playing the hook? SGGH speak! 08:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I put your points into bullets so I can organise myself more easily, hope you don't mind. SGGH speak! 10:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Nice work.
  • However, needs a "fresh eyes" c-e, as I can see numerous glitches and unexplained incidents of jargon.
  • Also needs to be reviewed for citations - every major claim needs a "says who" approach before FAC.
  • I've tagged a couple such.
    • Done these two, all cited in the cite of the next sentence but I have made it clearer
  • Technique section: Nice for an article for Wisden, but too detailed for Wikipedia.
    • I'll trim it down

--Dweller (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind me bullet pointing for ease of comment. SGGH speak! 13:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Ashes

A former featured article that one reviewer (see talk page) called "the worst FA I've ever seen". With justification because this article was quite abysmal in terms of its matches and series section. I've tried to take out out the POV and the imbalance by mentioning (nearly) all the series and putting everything into a properly objective perspective as series that belonged within a particular era of the contest's history.

I don't pretend that the article now is anywhere near perfect and it may still be a long way short of genuine FA standard. Although I've tried to make the best of the match and series section I would prefer to remove it completely because I believe that this article should be about the trophy and the legend: the series belong in the various tour and series articles that have been created.

I've given it a start-class rating as I don't think the citations are complete, mainly because someone has used Chris Harte ad nauseum when really they should have used Wisden.

It would be nice to get such an important cricket topic up to genuine A and even FA standard, so please review it and say where it can still be improved. BlackJack | talk page 22:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Although I've tried to make the best of the match and series section I would prefer to remove it completely because I believe that this article should be about the trophy and the legend: the series belong in the various tour and series articles that have been created." I think that something about the invididual series should remain, to give an overview of how the balance of power has shifted to and fro over time between England and Australia. You don't really get that in an article dealing with an inidividual series. JH (talk page) 08:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it again a week on I think the match/series section does have a place as long as it is balanced, which was the main complaint when the article was "demoted"; and as long as it does not take over the article which is essentially about the trophy and the legend. As such, I think the series section provides the background drama as it were, while the details about Jardine and the rest of the cast belong in their specific articles. BlackJack | talk page 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of cricket

The article has been rated start-class but the only one of the B-class criteria it failed on is the need for inline citations. These can be supplied but I would like a peer review to see if anyone can suggest other improvements. As this is one of the project's "flagship" top-importance articles, we ought to be aiming well beyond B-class. BlackJack | talk page 04:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not especially familiar with A class criteria, but it really could do with a decent Lead section, per WP:LEAD. Four paragraphs would probably be appropriate, somehow managing to summarise the key themes! Lol! --Dweller (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The section dealing with the future should be removed. Not only is it a breach of WP:CRYSTAL, it's off-topic. --Dweller (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
On a first reading my concerns are to do the comprehensiveness of the article. There is an overwhelming focus on cricket in England (somewhat understandable given it was played nowhere else for some time) and cricket elsewhere seems included as an afterthought as it were. What seems to me to be undue weight is given to the period where cricket was a pastime and a vehicle for gambling in areas of southern England and little weight attached to the period where it is a mass spectator sport followed by hundreds of millions. The development of Test cricket and the ICC is barely discussed; the shift in cricket's "centre of gravity" to the sub-continent is only touched upon when discussing Twenty/20. There is little or no mention of cricket's role in post-colonial identity in places such as Australia, India and the West Indies.
Don't get me wrong, the content on the early history of cricket is fascinating and to my mind, well written. So much so, I think it deserves an article of its own, freed from the burden of supporting an article that carries the comprehensive title of "History of cricket". Given the above, my early thoughts are:
  • Remove all content relating to cricket post 1860 (an arbitrary date I know, but can be justified given it was around that time that Grace appeared, international tours started, Wisden, overarm bowling etc.)
  • Rename the resulting article Early history of cricket
  • Expand the article with a focus on two main items;
    • The development of the laws, techniques and equipment of the game from its beginnings to what would be recognisable as cricket today; and
    • The development of organised cricket (clubs, championships etc.) which the article at present does quite well.
  • Create a new article with the title "History of cricket", written in summary style with a comprehensive focus on cricket worldwide.
I don't mean to appear too critical and I also don't wish to offend anyone; I think the article is well written, encyclopedic and informative and the contributors should be congratulated. I have no real concerns with the content as it is; however I feel an article entitled History of cricket should be comprehensive and cover cricket on a worldwide basis. I am aware this seems rather drastic and doesn't provide much helpful advice about improving the article as it stands. I am also aware that creating an article along the lines I am suggesting is a major task. I am happy to discuss concerns or points raised here if you wish. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment 1789 cancelled tour of France, by John Sackville, is missing OrangeKnight (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Agree with the idea of focusing on the development of laws, techniques, etc, and of organised cricket, but don't understand why it should be renamed early history of cricket : history of cricket is history of cricket, it should : deal with these development and sum up the history from the origins to nowadays. OrangeKnight (talk) 10:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You can argue that concentrating on the early history is justifiable, because the more recent history is covered in other, more specific, articles. If all the more recent history was covered in depth, this article could become impossibly long. But those other articles (eg the ones on early Test cricket history) should have "See also" prominent links within this article. JH (talk page) 17:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review

Shortcut:
WP:CRICR#A-CLASS
Instructions
Requesting a review

To request an A-Class review of an article:

  1. Add A-Class=current to the {{WikiProject Cricket}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax).
  2. From there, click on the "currently undergoing" link that appears in the template. This will open a page to discuss the status of the article.
  3. Place === [[Name of nominated article]] === at the top.
  4. Below it, write your reason for nominating the article and sign by using four tildes (~~~~).
  5. Add {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/Name of nominated article}} at the top of the list of A-Class review requests below.

If an article is nominated a second (or third, and so forth) time, either because it failed a prior nomination, or because it may no longer meet the standards and may thus need to be demoted:

  1. Move (do not copy) the existing review subpage {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/Name of nominated article}} to an archive {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1}}.
  2. Follow the instructions for making a request above: editing {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/Name of nominated article}}, which will be a redirect to the archive, into a new nomination page.
  3. Be sure to provide a prominent link to the last archive at the top of the nomination statement: e.g. "Prior nomination {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/Name of nominated article/Archive 1|here}}".

There is no limit on how quickly renominations of failed articles may be made; it is perfectly acceptable to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied.

Commenting

Reviewers should keep the criteria for featured articles in mind when supporting or opposing a nomination. However, please note that (unlike actual featured articles) A-Class articles are not expected to fully meet all of the criteria; an objection should indicate a substantive problem with the article. In particular, objections over relatively minor issues of writing style or formatting should be avoided at this stage; a comprehensive, accurate, well-sourced, and decently-written article should qualify for A-Class status even if it could use some further copyediting.

Closing and archiving

Reviews will be closed by one of the reviewers, normally after four days have elapsed. However, any reviewer may extend the four-day review period by up to three days if (a) the article has no opposes but insufficient support for promotion or if (b) the article's nominator requests, prior to the review's closure, more time to resolve matters arising. An article will generally be promoted to A-Class if (a) it has garnered at least three endorsements from uninvolved editors, and (b) there are no substantive objections indicative of a major flaw in the article.

To extend the review period, reviewers should add, directly above the nomination text, as appropriate:

  1. either :'''Review extended''' until [time], [date] (UTC) to garner further comment. ~~~~
  2. or :'''Review extended''' until [time], [date] (UTC) to resolve existing objections. ~~~~.

To close a review, reviewers should:

  1. Add {{subst:archive top}} and {{subst:archive bottom}} to the top and bottom of the review subpage, respectively.
  2. Change the A-Class=current in the {{WikiProject Cricket}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page to either A-Class=pass (if the nomination is successful) or A-Class=fail (if it is not), and update the assessment class if needed.
  3. Move the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/Name of nominated article}} from the list of requests below to the current archive page.
  4. Remove the article link from the A-Class review list at {{tl|WikiProject Cricket Announcements}} (if and when created).
  5. If the nomination was successful, add the article name to the list of A-Class articles.
edit
Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Australian cricket team in England in 1902

Having read the criteria for an A-class article, I believe that this article meets them all. Of course, having done a lot of work on the article myself, it's always possible that I am viewing it through rose-tinted spectacles. JH (talk page) 20:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Sydney Riot of 1879

This is a former featured article that easily passes the WP:CRIC B-class rating criteria so we should subject it to formal A-class review. I have a doubt about its importance rating which is currently low. I do not personally recommend this article for A-class but given the peculiarity of its situation in that it has been featured, I think we ought to take a view about it. BlackJack | talk page 16:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the topic is more important than you suggest. The riot had a major impact on the Australians' tour of England in 1880, being one of the reasons why the Australians found it hard to get fixtures against the English counties (the late date at which the tour was arranged was another reason). Also I believe that unhappy memories of the riot led to several English players refusing invitations to play in the Test. Also a riot at a cricket ground is a significant event in its own right. If I were to rate the article's importance, I would put it at Mid I think. Now I'd better go and reread the article and see what I think of its quality. JH (talk page) 20:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I've now had a quick read. There are a number of "citation needed" tags that will need to be attended to, but otherwise the article seems in good shape. I note that WP Australia has rated it as A class. JH (talk page) 18:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it again and I've decided to withdraw one or two of my earlier comments. I think you are right given the riot's longer term ramifications. I think it can go to A if the citation requests are dealt with. Might do it myself if time. I'll leave it another week. BlackJack | talk page 18:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philadelphian cricket team

This has easily passed the criteria for a B-class rating. It was previously given an informal A-class rating and should now be subject to formal review. BlackJack | talk page 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that the Sports WP have already rated this as an A. I don't know how rigorous their process was. JH (talk page) 18:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Nothing against Americans of course, but as the creator of the Philadelphian cricket team article, I must point out that I am actually English! User:Evadb, who is American, did a very good job on it too. Not sure about putting it forward for A class just yet though, it needs a little more work on the non first-class matches the team played, especially the regular matches they played against Bermuda between 1907 and 1928. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Rereading it, this is an excellent article, but there's a problem very early on: Even with the United States having played the first ever international cricket match against Canada in 1844, the sport began a slow decline in the country. A citation is given against this (the very first citation in fact), but unfortunately the cited Cricinfo article doesn't seem to mention the sport's decline in America. It's actually about the C. Christopher Morris Cricket Library. Also the wording that I've quoted rather gives the impression that the decline began more or less at the same time as that 1844 fixture, rather than some twenty years later (which is my understanding). JH (talk page) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that first citation might have been intended to be [1] JH (talk page) 19:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Searching on CA shows that "All Philadelphia" played a number of matches between 1918 and 1923, and one final fixture in 1928 against Bermuda, but none were first-class. However it's probably worth a brief mention. (Rereading what Andrew wrote a bit more carefully, I see that he's already mentioned this. It also needs to be reflected in the History of US cricket article) JH (talk page) 18:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of United States cricket

The article has easily passed the WP:CRIC criteria for B-class rating. It was previously given an informal A-class rating and it should now be subject to formal A-class review. I have just removed a "trivia" section to improve its quality. The essence of A-class is completeness and I believe that it does provide a comprehensive presentation of the subject. I think User:Evadb and User:Andrew nixon have done some particularly good work on this article. BlackJack | talk page 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a very good article. However I'd like to see a brief mention of post WW1 cricket in the Philadelphia region, which didn't completely die out until at least 1928, as a brief search on CricketArchive will show. C Aubrey Smith's Hollywood club might also be briedly mentioned. JH (talk page) 19:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And does anyone know anything about this? [2] I thought at first that CA might have made a mistake in filing it under US cricket and that it might have been played at some place called Brooklyn in England. But there's a footnote to the scorecard saying that the match was played for a purse of $100. JH (talk page) 19:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
To answer myself, apparently it wasn't a tour, the players being Americans who had emigrated from Nottingham and Sheffield. I found that from this excellent site on US cricket history, which a Google search has just unearthed: [3] JH (talk page) 19:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article candidates

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/FAC instructions

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Featured article review

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/FAR instructions

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Featured list candidates

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/FLC instructions

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Featured list removal candidates

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/FLRC instructions

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Non-article featured content candidates

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Review/FC instructions

Please add new requests below this line

[edit] Archives

Peer review
A-Class review