Talk:1979 Gillette Cup final/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It was the seventeenth final of the Gillette Cup, which had been the first domestic tournament to pit first-class cricket sides against each other in a knock-out competition.": Should specify "English domestic tournament" as there were overseas ones before this. What about "…the first English domestic knock-out competition between first-class sides"?

Changed as suggested.

Why do we need to specify best and worst bowling in Somerset's innings in the lead? Maybe just the best, or better still leave this out.

Removed.

First paragraph of "Route to the final" is a little repetitive: "Northamptonshire… They… They… Northamptonshire".
"Northamptonshire entered the competition in the second round…": Could we say why neither county played in the first round? (What happened to the good old days of losing to minor counties?)

I can't actually find any source stating why they got first round byes. I'll do some digging though.

"Northamptonshire batted first for the first time…" I don't think we need "for the first time" as the reader can work that out.

Removed.

"Willey was then instrumental…" How?

Added in that it was due to his economical bowling.

"and Somerset's Vic Marks reflected his captain, Brian Rose was glad when Northamptonshire won the toss." This reads oddly. I assume this means that Marks remembered Rose was glad to lose the toss, but it is a little garbled. I'd leave it as "Brian Rose was glad when Northants won the toss".

Changed as suggested.

Overlinking in "Build-up" and "Match": E.g: Both counties and Rose already linked; Marks not linked on first mention, but linked in second. There are a few other examples.

Removed some of the overlinking; which also meant I removed the lovely [[Northamptonshire County Cricket Club|Somerset]].

Should it be chanceless rather than chance-less?

Probably: changed.

Spot-checks fine, no problems with sourcing and referencing. Everything else checks out.
I cleaned up a couple of prose things: Mainly noun verbing.
There may be a few problems with jargon, but I don't see this as an issue for GA.

I'll put it on hold for the moment but shouldn't take long at all. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that it took me a while to get to this, I've been pretty busy with RL, Wikipedia is taking something of a back seat at the moment. Harrias ^talk 13:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good now. Passing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]