Talk:1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy final

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 11:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look at this one. Harrias ^talk 11:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

Overall, I think the balance of this article could do with a little bit of work. The "Road to the Final" section (which should be renamed "Route to the Final" as per the current GAs) could do with detailing more of how the finalists fared earlier in the tournament. I don't think there is any need for the match summary boxes for the semi-finals though. Take a look at what I did in 2009 Women's Cricket World Cup Final, or what was done in 2008 Indian Premier League Final for a couple of different approaches, but both offering more background to the final itself, giving a feel for how the tournament had gone for the two sides.

The prose could also do with cleaning up: "South African captain Hansie Cronje handed the new ball.." isn't encyclopaedic language, while "..after West Indies losing the toss and invited to bat" doesn't make much sense at all. The few sentences about Symcox are very stop-start, and need some work to make them flow better; the same could be said about a lot of the prose: try to make it sound less like a series of bullet points.

An "Aftermath" section would also be beneficial, perhaps giving a brief summary of how the teams fared in the few years after this tournament, and broadly how the next tournament was. Harrias ^talk 23:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, completely missed this. I'm likely to be quite busy for the next few days with work stuff, but I'll do my best to get to it as soon as possible. Feel free to ping me if you think I might have forgotten! Harrias ^talk 17:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• No problem, I'm busy too! --Khadar Khani (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you have done on this. That said, I think a fair bit is still needed: the prose is jilted, and still reads more like a string of bullet points, rather than flowing nicely. There are a number of inconsistencies (in the lead you use "knock out stage", but later "KnockOut stage", the infobox says "245/10", whereas elsewhere you use "245 all out" or "245". It might be better to take this to peer review, and then come back after some more work has been done. That said, if you would like, I can carry out an in depth review here if you would prefer? Harrias ^talk 15:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias: thanks for looking at this one. A review here is a better option, I think. --Khadar Khani (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• If it was officially known as the Wills International Cup, and ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive both use this title for the tournament, why is that not the name of the article?
• I'm not keen on the term "pre-quarter final match", and to be honest, I'm not sure that the details are required in the lead, given neither of the finalists played in that match.
• While the competition (might) be called "KnockOut", that isn't encyclopedic language to use when referring to a "knock-out" or "knockout" stage. Pick one of those options, and use it consistently through the article, except when referring to the name of the tournament.
• "reached into the semi-finals. South Africa reached into the final" No need for either use of "into". This is also very repetitive, using the same terminology twice in less than a sentence.
• Link "1998 ICC KnockOut Trophy" on the first use, not at the start of the second paragraph.
• In fact, it isn't needed to repeat the full title of the tournament, maybe start the second paragraph "The tournament's final was played..."
• Avoid the "noun plus -ing" construction, such as "with Philo Wallace scoring 103 runs". Have a look at User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for guidance.
• "Hansie Cronje and Mike Rindel scoring 61 not out and 49 runs respectively." This sentence doesn't work on its own in this tense: changing "scoring" to "scored" would help.
• "won the inaugural edition of the ICC Knock out Trophy" Be consistent with the tournament name.
• "South Africa won the inaugural edition of the ICC Knock out Trophy by defeating West Indies in the final; they won the match by four wickets." In fact, the whole sentence is full of redundancy: maybe rewrite as "South Africa won the inaugural edition of the ICC KnockOut Trophy by four wickets." The rest of the information has already been given, and doesn't need repeating. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Harrias: done except the first one, I would like to change the title at the end of the discussion. --Khadar Khani (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Route to the Final (Knock-out stage)

• I'm not convinced on the scope of this section. It possibly needs a little bit more about the finalists, and a little bit less about the rest of the teams, overall making the section probably a little bit longer.

Route to the Final (Semi-finals)

• Not sure the dates of the matches are especially relevant to this article.
• Both paragraphs suffer slightly from sounding like a string of bullet points, and should be improved to flow better.
• The grammar could do with improvement, for example: "and the revising target was 224 runs" should have revised, rather than revising.

Build-up

• This section very much seems like a string of unrelated sentences, and needs improvements to allow it to flow better.

Match

• I'm not sure that "whereas" is the right word to use, as the opening batsman and bowlers are not really comparable.
• The section does in general flow a lot better than previous sections, but could still do with some work, for example: "Wallace was dropped twice in his innings by Jonty Rhodes. He was stumped by Mark Boucher off the bowling of Cronje. South Africa were 180 runs for four wicket at that moment." probably does not need to be three separate sentences.
• Avoid "noun plus -ing", such as "with Wallace taking the total to 94." See User:Tony1/Noun plus -ing for some guidance.

Aftermath

• "The South African captain received US$100,000..", "The West Indian captain received US$60,000 for.." Was it just the captain that received prize money, or the entire team?
• It might be worth mentioning the next tournament briefly here, and how South Africa/West Indies did.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'll place the article on hold at the moment to allow you time to address these concerns. Harrias ^talk 12:31, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

No significant work has been done on this over the last week. I'm going to close the nomination as failed, and would recommend working through the above before nomination again. Harrias ^talk 08:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)