Talk:Wisden Trophy

This is good enough that it might well have a shot at Good Article (GA) status. However there's a due process to be gone through for that, and as an individual assessor I don't have authority to rate it that highly. One minor point: though the last two series happened each to have had four Tests, I'm not sure that that is more than chance. However I haven't altered the wording. JH (talk page) 20:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to be neutral in this article, but being a England fan I might not be completely impartial at times. So please state any parts that are biased so I can correct the relevant parts.Monsta666 18:10, 9 July 2007 (U

Chaza93 Shall Review it Tomorrow, I'm too tired now Chaza93 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

GA On Hold

I put this article on hold but it needs a lot of work. The thing that stands out most is the grammar

• Grammar
  • You need to use "the West Indies". Many sentences just say "England beat West Indies" or the sentence starts with "West Indies"  Done

Added later: I've been looking at other sources such as Wisden/BBC and they often refer to the West Indian cricket team simply as "West Indies" not "the West Indies" as you suggest.

• • Should say "claimed" or "took" not "got" X wickets.  Done
  • Generally speaking, there are many sentences which have grammatical issues. If you are having trouble, please ask for help.  Done (sort of) Might need an expert to look at this (at least someone who is NOT familiar with this article).
• Style
  • Per WP:CRIC, please use "First Test", "Second Test" , use caps on First Second etc  Done

Added Later: Cricket only treats the word "Test" as an noun so there is no reason to say First Test unless you are beginning a sentence. Like the West Indies issue Wisden/BBC say first Test not First Test as you suggest but have followed your suggestion.

• • Consistency. Please do not say "five Test series" and at another place say "5 Test series"  Done
  • Per WP:MOS, after the first instance of using a person's name, only use surname. So "Sobers" 20+ times and not "Gary Sobers" every time.  Done but kept full names in pictures
  • Put refs immediately after punctuation with no space. Do not put spaces between consecutive refs.  Done
  • Sections should be "Year: slogan". As it stands with the number at the end it is grammatical incorrect. Also some of the slogans are POV like "Lara explodes..."  Done corrected layout; changed potential POV slogans
• Lead
  • Should not discuss the rules of Test cricket or talk about other stuff like Ashes.  Done removed rules of Test cricket (kept the holder retains trophy as I feel some people will not get that concept); removed Ashes references
  • Needs to talk more about history, heritage and such.  Done added summary of series mentioning the key players of the series
• Information
  • Has there only been one riot in all those years? Was there nothing interesting apart from the scores?  Done there has only been one riot (this is cricket remember) but have included pitch invasion; mob attacking England; Viv Richards appeal etc.
  • Article needs to show evolution of the series and the bigger picture of the how the momentum swung, because at the moment it seems a little robotic in the way the results are linearly repeated.  Done The lead describes general momentum while series shows momentum in specific tours.
  • Each series section needs to have a broad conclusion about who were the decisive players/ strategies in the series. At the moment, it concludes at most with who the top run-scorer was. It should describe what the general decisive motif in the result was: eg, "an in form top order provided the WI/ENG with a solid basis for heavy scoring, which allowed them to put the opposition under pressure" or "WI was unable to cope with the reverse swing of Jones and Flintoff and frequently suffered middle order collapses" and so forth.  Done
  • Needs information about the actual trophy and organisation. At the moment it is simply 95%+ match result.  Done but could not find much info on the trophy.
• Prose
  • too many "however"s which do not add to the article and other redundant words.  Done

Final comments: My comments might sound a bit harsh at times but I still greatly appreciate your comments as you have helped me (and the article) greatly. Thanks for taking the time to review this page.Monsta666 01:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Regards, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ashes is a useful model. It is an FA, but was promoted in the old days when inline references were not necessary and thinks were a bit looser. But it should still be around modern GA levels. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to have to fail this article because the language is not really up to standard. The info is pretty good although the model used for sections seems to vary with different sections which makes it seem a bit funny. I went and copyedited some myself and I will help in the cleanup for the next improvement I think. But at the moment, Dweller also agrees with me. SEe my talk page.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the whole article and attempted to sharpen up the English. I think that the descriptions of some of the series, especially some of the early ones, could usefully be expanded (for example there's no mention of Trueman's fine performance in the Third Test of 1963), but that will have to wait for another time. JH (talk page) 19:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review

Hi all,

I've just done a first GA review on this excellent article. Here are my (very few) findings:

• I've put a few {{fact}} tags in the article. Please don't be offended by this! I've put them where there seem to be subjective statements (weaker, stronger and so on), which would need a supporting citation. I apologize right off for putting those tags there - I hate the things myself - but I figured it was an easier way of pointing out the statements that need attention, rather than listing them here.
  • It’s a good thing you added those fact tags because there was some places that I wasn’t sure needed cites. Other times I just couldn’t be bothered to include them. Anyways I hope these sources are good enough! The cites are quite long so you might want to follow my pointers to get at the useful info.
• 1963 tour - The info is in the second paragraph on the page.
• 1966 tour - Start from the fourth paragraph.
• 1967-68 tour - The info is buried quite deep in there I advice typing ctrl+F and the typing ‘Boycott and Cowdrey’ and you’ll get it. There is some mention of a weaker West Indian attack a few paragraphs down from here too.
• 1969 tour – Read the 1969 tour in this page.
• 1988 tour – First source says 23 players were selected. Second source describes selectors were confused and did not where to turn to. (It’s described at the beginning so don’t worry)
• 1995 tour - Changed wording in opening paragraph. First source shows how Bishop and Cork were decisive in winning the Test match for this team. Source two describes Atherton’s impact on the England team. It also describes the how West Indies looked to Lara for runs and Walsh for wickets. Bishop is mentioned as the leading wicket taker.
• 1997-98 tour - Added summary of results

• • • In the 03-04 series section, which test was "Harmison's bowling figures of 7/12 (which were the best achieved in Sabina Park Tests) were the main cause of the West Indian second innings collapse to 47 all out." in? First or Second?
      • Harmison achieved these bowling figures in the second innings of the first Test i.e. the Test where the West Indies collapsed to 47 all out. There was another collapse in the second innings of the third Test which was partly due to Hoggard's hat-trick. This maybe the confusing part.Monsta666 19:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And that's it, really!

• Regarding the Cricinfo/Wisden sources I did not fill any registration forms. If you check out the external link Cricinfo - England v West Indies at the bottom of the article you can access all the sources I used. Admittedly a bit of browsing is required but the link provides info to all the series. Monsta666 19:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Once you've addressed those two minor points, I will still ask for a second opinion over at WP:GAN, for two reasons:

1. First, I've done a fair bit of copy-editing while reviewing the article, and so I'm not sure if I'm allowed to have the final say on passing it; and Allowed, apparently :)
2. The use of cricinfo as a source - since that online source requires registration to access, I don't know if it's allowed. A more experienced reviewer will hopefully be able to answer that question. Actually, it's the Wisden Almanack bits on cricinfo that need a registration; I'm told that if another source isn't available, they're acceptable. Is there another source? An ideal would be the little yellow book itself, rather than an online version. Carre 14:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I'd like to thank you all for what I consider a great article - as with all the cricket articles I've read here, it is a pleasure to read! Carre 13:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be easy to alter the Wisden references to refer to the books rather than the Website. From one point of view, the Website is better, as more people have access to ir (and though registration is needed for the Wisden part of it, it's free). We could perhaps have the best of both worlds by specifying the relevant issues of Wisden but keeping them as links to Cricinfo. JH (talk page) 16:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Best of both worlds sounds great. I noticed the Cricinfo/Wisden bit was free - if it had been subscription based, I was told they'd be definitely disallowed references. Carre 16:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

<undent>The Harmison thing was because it wasn't clear which one, First or Second, since there was no indication of which the Sabina Park test was. I've just stuck an "in the First Test" on the sentence in question - I hope that's OK.

Regarding the {{fact}} tags, on rereading I think a couple of them may be a bit harsh/strict, so if you disagree with the need of a citation on any of them, list it here and I'll see if it's one of the ones I can live without for GA :)

And on to the CricInfo/Wisden source - it seems the consensus with the GAN crowd is that the current sources would be OK, but if you can do the "best of both worlds" thing that Jhall1 mentions, that would be spot on - lets people use their collection if they have hard-copy, or go to the library, or register for the Wisden pages. Carre 12:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Finally I was wondering if there was anything that could be done to improve this article further? Thanks for the review/copy editing greatly appreciate it. Monsta666 15:01, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re the 1988 tour - the fact tag was really added for the "low expectations" bit, rather than the 23 players (yup, I put it in the wrong place). However, the "lambs to the slaughter" from the new source I think addresses it well enough :)

Improve the article further - is that an FA drive? I'd throw it at WP:LoCE, if I were you; the prose could still be improved a little, for example I get the sense of too many consecutive "also"s throughout, although I may have got some of them in my various CEs. I'd also consider going for A-class under the Cricket WikiProject, before going anywhere near FA. In my (limited) experience, A-class project reviews are much quicker, and extremely helpful. Similarly, I see you've been through a community peer review, but a project PR would probably be more beneficial. Generally, I think the route should be Article->project PR->GA->project A-class->LoCE->FA. LoCE has a huge backlog though, so don't expect quick actions there!

I think I could probably pass this GA now, with a clear conscience, but you have a few more days of the on-hold state to get those on-line Wisden sources perfect. I'll be back either if there are more changes (here or on article), or in a couple of days, to close the GA nom. And now, back to the Rugby ;) Carre 15:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as improving the article further is concerned, I think the earlier series tend to be covered in rather less depth than the more recent ones. BTW, I;ve altered the title of the section descrivbing the tropty from "Wisden cup" to "Wisden Trophy", as it's obvious from the photgraph that it isn't in the form of a cup. (I think it's correct to capitialise both words rather than just the first, since it's the designated name of the trophy.) JH (talk page) 15:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Just realised I put this on Monsta's talk page, but it would be more appropriate here:

It's an awkward one - my personal preference for good quality articles is to combine <ref> , {{harv}} (and variants) and {{citation}} templates, which would make it pretty simple. It would, however, be incredibly arrogant for me to impose my own preference on you. I don't know enough about the {{cite}} templates to be sure, since I've never used them... but could you not combine two cites within a single <ref>, one for the online, one for the hard copy? Carre 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Example: <ref>{{cite web|blah blah blah}}; for hard copy {{ cite book|isbn|page|nar de nar}}</ref>. Does that work? Carre 17:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

That method does work Carre. Not owning the books I have no idea what page number to put. Shall I put the book and ISBN and ask for help for the page number? Monsta666 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers would be required for FA, but not for GA - just a "nice to have". Carre 11:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Added cites from books with page numbers. Monsta666 15:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ireland just lost 15-30 to Argentina and are out... How shocking only England, Scotland and France left from the 'sick nations'. Monsta666 16:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

Well done folks. I'd get rid of that nasty "Other - various Wisden Almanacks" right at the end though! Looks horrible! Again, my congratulations, and thanks. Carre 18:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wisden Trophy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809001421/http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/test/future_tours/ftp_2008-09.pdf to http://www.icc-cricket.com/icc/test/future_tours/ftp_2008-09.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070123002231/http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/TEST_BAT_HIGH_INNS_SCORES.html to http://uk.cricinfo.com/db/STATS/TESTS/BATTING/TEST_BAT_HIGH_INNS_SCORES.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding links to Wikipedia pages that don't exist

There is a link to a stub: Richards-Botham Trophy. Someone changed one of my previous edits on another page and said one shouldn't link to pages, without creating the page itself. So I suggest this be removed. I've not removed it as I don't know if the other person was correct. Infobleep (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I created a stub article Richards–Botham Trophy, with a redirect to it from Richards-Botham Trophy. I'm happy for people to expand it or to merge it into this article, whatever's felt to be appropriate. W. P. Uzer (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

GA status concerns

This older GA promotion is listed at WP:SWEEPS2023, a limited GA sweeps initiative to review older good article promotions flagged as higher-risk for not meeting the modern GA criteria. There is significant uncited text in the article, particularly when describing the post-2000 developments, and this information does not appear to meet the WP:BLUE exception. Additionally, the entire Summary of Results section is uncited. If improvements do not occur, a good article reassessment may be necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 19:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)