Talk:1988 Women's Cricket World Cup final

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Melbourne Cricket Ground

• ... that the 1988 Women's Cricket World Cup Final had an attendance of 3,326 at the 90,000 capacity Melbourne Cricket Ground (pictured)? Source: "The crowd, given as 3,326" (The Times) and "where 3000 fans rattled around the 90,000-seat stadium" (New Zealand Cricket Museum).

• Reviewed: Palo Alto station

Created by Harrias (talk). Self-nominated at 09:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC).

• Y Article is long enough (8334 characters), new enough (moved to mainspace on 8 April, nominated same day), and article is within policy. Copyvio is at 16% but it's a false positive, as the text flagged is just scorecard text and "won the toss and batted first", both of which are sensible to be the same as the source
• Y The hook is short enough and interesting, and is supported by the combination of the two sources mentioned above
• Y Image is PD, looks good at low resolution, and is used in the article
• Y QPQ done
• Overall, this nomination passes, congratulations. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1988 Women's Cricket World Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MWright96 (talk · contribs) 13:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Will be reviewing this article as part of the GAN Backlog Drive of April to May 2020. MWright96 (talk) 13:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, will take a look through in detail tomorrow. Harrias ^talk 20:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): 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:

Background

• "England had won the first world cup" - World Cup
• "Australia had beaten England" - defeated
• Wikilink wickets to the relevant article

Route to the final

• "once against Australia and once against New Zealand." - possible minor rewrite to avoid repetition of the same phrase?
• "Ireland and the Netherlands were well adrift," - behind

Summary

• "in Melbourne, Australia on 18 December." - comma after Australia please
• "Heather Smith, of The Sydney Morning Herald suggested that," - the first comma isn't needed I think
• Wikilink the first mention of the term "crease" to the relevant article and the same for the terms "delivery" and "over"
• "earning praise from both The Sydney Morning Herald and The Times,[9][6]" - refs in numerical order

• The MOS specifically states this is not necessary: "References need not be moved solely to maintain the chronological order of footnotes as they appear in the article..". Harrias ^talk 20:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It's a part of the MOS that I don't agree with but it's no deal breaker MWright96 (talk) 08:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• "and in the fourteenth over," - 14th

Aftermath

• Both mentions of "world cup" should be spelt as "World Cup"

@MWright96: Other than the point I responded to last night, all have been changed as suggested. Thanks for the review. Harrias ^talk 08:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Harrias: Am satisfied with the changes and will be promoting to GA class. MWright96 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)