Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 23:06, 30 January 2012 [1].

List of ICC Cricket World Cup finals[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 08:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured list because following on from another list TRM worked on, we thought it a good idea to revisit this one which had previously failed simply because Around The Globe couldn't find the time to address the concerns of the reviewers. It's been slightly overhauled since then and had a History section added, a few images, some accessible tables, decent (and well-formatted) references, and is entirely complete. Hopefully the reviewing public will agree! Thanks for your time, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

~~History: Is "a" missing from "while Mike Veletta made rapid 35..."?~~
"An attendance of over 87,000 saw...". Might work better starting off as "A crowd".
- Now it says "An crowd". Still think it needs to be "A". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oops, my mistake, fixed! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~The "baffled by the googly" quote could use a link to the term googly, for those of us who aren't that knowledgeable about cricket.~~
~~Should "and their first win in final" also have "a" in it, before "final"?~~
~~"It was also for the first time that the team batting second emerged victorious." Remove "for".~~
"before Ponting and Damien Martin went on to score an unbeaten the highest partnership in any World Cup final with an unbeaten 234." First "an unbeaten" needs to be removed, as it is harmful to the sentence.
~~"and opening stand with Hayden became the largest first-wicket partnership in World Cup history." Feels like "his" should be in there before "opening".~~
~~LBW could stand to be spelled out.~~
~~Remove space before reference 35.~~ Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Giants, I believe I've taken care of all of these comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias ^talk

I haven't had a chance to look throughly through this article yet, but on first read I can see a number of example of "with... xxxing", which isn't ideal. Take a look at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for help removing them. I'll look through the article more later! Harrias ^talk 13:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Had a purge of "withs", look forward to your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"England is the only team to reach the finals and not win the World Cup," – I think that should be "final" singular, rather than plural which you use later to refer to the tournament as a whole.
- Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Keith Boyce added a quick fire 34.." – I'm not sure "quick fire" is encyclopedic language. Maybe just "quick"?
- Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd link deliveries on first usage. Similarly link run out (which I wouldn't hyphenate).
- Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Four years later, the West Indies qualified for the final once again, this time facing England, the hosts at Lord's for the second consecutive tournament." – This sentence makes it sound like the West Indies are facing England at Lord's for the second time in a row, something that clearly isn't true from the previous sentences. Try to remove the ambiguity from the sentence.
- Done, I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"An unbeaten 138 from Viv Richards, and supported by Collis King in a 139-run partnership for the fifth wicket, the West Indies " – The "and" seems superfluous to me in this sentence, but maybe I'm reading it wrong? Also, I think there needs to be another word before "the West Indies", possibly "helped"?
- It sort-of made sense to me, but have re-worded, any better? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"A profitable yet slow opening partnership between Mike Brearley and Geoffrey Boycott (the latter taking 17 overs to reach double figures) saw England to 129 but following Brearley's dismissal, only Graham Gooch and Derek Randall made a "brief assault" on the West Indian bowling, before a batting collapse, Joel Garner taking five wickets in eleven balls, saw England all out for 194, presenting the West Indies with their second consecutive title, winning by 92 runs." – That is a very long sentence! Perhaps try cutting it into two, or maybe even three shorter sentences?
- Split into three! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"This time, they faced India.." – Maybe replace "This time" with "On this occasion"?
- Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRIC#STYLE suggests using / rather than – when shortening cricket scores, as you've done in the table. I'm not over fussed either way, but be consistent between the table and the prose.
- Slashed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"but with 17 required in the final over.." – A little pedantic maybe, but I think it would be best to say "17 runs".
- Runs added. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NUM suggests that "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs." So in this final sentence, I'd recommend either "but with 17 runs required in the final over to win, England fell short and lost by 7 runs." or "but with seventeen runs required in the final over to win, England fell short and lost by seven runs."
- Bad TRM. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pakistani batsmen Imran Khan and Javed Miandad saw a third-wicket partnership of 139." – Not keen on the use of "saw", maybe replace it with "built"?
- "shared" alright with you? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"India and Pakistan along with Sri Lanka once again.." – I'd put "along with Sri Lanka" in a clause: "India and Pakistan, along with Sri Lanka, once again.."
- Claused. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Winning the toss, Arjuna Ranatunga sent Australia in to bat.." – Maybe "After winning the toss,"?
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"..South Africa, Kenya and Zimbabwe, the final being a day-night match contested" – previously you've always written day/night.
- Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"and ended on the highest score in World Cup final history, on 359–2." – I'm not keen on the repitition of "on", perhaps change it to "in World Cup final history: 359–2."
- Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Player of the series Sachin Tendulkar was dismissed.." – He might have been named "player of the series", but I think for the purposes of this article it would make far more sense to call him "player of the tournament".
- Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link Strike rate.
- Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"..but a 97 from.." – I think this should either be "..but 97 from.." or "..but a score of 97 from.."
- Yep, removed "a". The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 3, 4, 5, 6, 11 are missing publisher details (publisher and location)
- Done to the best of my ability. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8 is missing the author: Martin Williamson.
- Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 9 is missing the date: 14 February 2011
- Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 15, 18: Norman Preston can be linked.
- Done by ATG. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 25, per your descriptions, the work should be Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, not ESPNcricinfo
- Indeed, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In your Cricinfo refs for the finals, you format the title in two ways: "Prudential World Cup, 1975" and "ICC World Cup – Final – Australia v India" – try to be consistent and use just one of these two options.
- Well, Cricinfo themselves changed their match title formatting, but I've made it consistent here, all using en-dashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a lot from me, but it is all pretty minor stuff. Overall, very good work on this article, and once these tweaks are done, I'll be more than happy to support the article. Harrias ^talk 11:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's lovely Harrias. I'll get on to it tomorrow hopefully. I knew the history needed a bit of a copyedit, perhaps I should have PR'ed beforehand. But in any case, thanks, will get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've caught everything there Harrias, let us know! Thanks again for your interest and comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, good work: an equivalent women's list is sat in one of my sandboxes, but the parent article needs a bit of expansion! Harrias ^talk 10:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit

Comments

This is simply based on my preferences but I would split the references into two columns
- Makes little difference to me, so I've changed it to split in two, some browsers don't support it, but for those who do, enjoy! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
England could be linked in the lead
- Indeed, my oversight, and I guess combines with the next comment.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would link the countries on their first usage in the history, especially the ones that don't have links in the lead
- I've linked those who I believe I missed. I didn't link the "host countries" because they were countries, not the teams... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images could do with alt text
- Definitely, silly me. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The result column in the table is confusing me at the moment. Its sorting alphabetically, shouldn't it sort by biggest margin of victory? Or am I missing something.
- Alphabetical was the only way I thought reasonable. What makes a 90 run win better than a 5 wicket win? It's subjective, so I've kept it alphabetical. Should it be problematic, I'll just make the column unsortable.

NapHit (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments NapHit! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fantastic work. NapHit (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks very good to me, but I think the yellow is too bright for Duckworth-Lewis. When I saw it I thought it must be highlighting some outstanding achievement (the biggest winning margin??), but all it means is that the game was heavily rain-affected. --99of9 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DL Changed to something lighter. Thanks, Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 05:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another idea... move the blue "day/night" demarkations out of the "game result" column, and into the "venue" column. --99of9 (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why. The day/night refers to the game, not to the venue. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To me the day/night is a logistical issue (like the venue), not a competition result issue (like the game result). --99of9 (talk) 11:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not really fussed either way so changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.