Talk:World Cricket Tsunami Appeal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cricket Portal Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability World Cricket Tsunami Appeal is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Categories and templates: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no <!-- 6. It is fully and correctly categorised and carries all appropriate templates. --> |B-Class-6=yes/no

World Cricket Tsunami Appeal has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

| "First ODI" section looks more like a commentary. needs to be re-written. i would do it, if i wasn't so busy with other things more important than wikipedia :) ! Jam2k 19:18, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

I would argue that it looks like a commentary on the match because that's actually (by and large) what it is. It's a report on what happened during the game, and it's difficult to write that without it looking like commentary. I'd be happy to perform surgery on it if you're too busy, but if you've got the time to make some suggestions (either here or on my Talk page) as to how it can keep being a report on the match and cease being commentary, that would be a great help. BigHaz 22:22, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it is a commentary. Squash 02:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Again, if anyone has any constructive suggestions as to how to "de-commentary" it, then I'd be happy to run those changes through. Just saying "It's a commentary" doesn't exactly help anywhere, since (as I said above), that's sort of the point. BigHaz 22:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it having a reasonable commentary section. Perhaps cutting the commentary down slightly would be a good thing - some of the detail is perhaps unneccessary - but I think that since the main part of the appeal was the playing of a match there should be a reasonable summary of what happened in the match. Grutness|^hello? 00:10, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point. The article on the Border-Gavaskar Trophy (test series between India and Australia) contains descriptions of each series because that's what the trophy is all about. Likewise, this article should contain a reasonable description of the match, since if the match hadn't been played then there would be no World Cricket Tsunami Appeal. I daresay that once the second match has been played, there'd be various editing that could be done to this article to cover both matches, but in lieu of that I think we've got a reasonable thing going here, unless Jam2k or Squash would like to make the odd suggestion about what can/should be done to improve it. BigHaz 01:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Now the second ODI has been cancelled, I'm putting this page on peer review, as I'd be interested to see if it could be worked up to be featured on Wikipedia:Featured articles, jguk 07:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Portal link

I have transfered the Cricket portal link from the beginning of the article to a "see also" section. It seemed an obstruction and was distracting, and also, perhaps not so directly relevant that it need be placed there. There is a template for portal links that is used in articles, which, although placed at the beginning of many articles, is progressively being transfer to the end (alongside Commons footers).-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 29 June 2005 14:34 (UTC)