Wikipedia:Peer review/Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003/archive1

Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to see improvements in the articles prose, with an intention of taking to FAC.

Thanks, Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 06:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC.
- Italicise newspaper titles in your references.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 15:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, did the only one. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch comments: I agree that the language needs work, and that there are some other issues that would be problematic at FAC. Here are some suggestions for improvement, but I would find someone to copyedit this to get things in order before FAC. I also have to say that I know very little about cricket, despite a few attempts by others to explain it to me.

The automated tips tool finds some contractions and {{fact}} tags that need to be fixed.
The alt text tool also finds several images that lack alt text - see WP:ALT
The link tool finds that four links have gone dead and need to be fixed
I am not sure of the Cricket article conventions, but I found it odd that in the Infobox it was Australia on the left and Bangladesh on the right, but in all the tables except one (3rd ODI) it was the reverse. If there is some good reason for doing this, fine, but if not I would make them all consistent.
Make sure to provide context for the reader - for example All-rounder is not linked in the lead, but such a link would help for those who do not know or understand the term. See WP:PCR
Watch imprecise language The series marked the first time a Test match had been played outside an Australian state capital city;... makes it sound as if every Test match in world history had been played in an Australian state capital city until now.
This sentence is out of place in the lead Former Australian batsman David Hookes, indicated that Australia could win either Test within a day and Bangladesh did not deserve Test status. First off the article makes it clear that he said this before the test matches began, but in the lead it is the last sentence, making it seem as if he said it afterwards. I also think that the Pakistani reaction to his statement, as well as that of other Australians, should be given. Comprehensiveness is an FAC criterion.
I think it might help to add a few sentences on Test matches to the Background section to provide context.
Is "spiner" correct in Australia defeated India in the final, despite losing leg-spiner Shane Warne. Should it be "spinner"?
I realize if you undertand cricket, this probably makes perfect sense, but again adding wikilinks and trying to avoid jargon where possible would help a lot. On a slow and low drop-in pitch airlifted from Melbourne a month before the match, Australia won the toss and elected to field.[5] Bangladesh collapsed and were bowled out for 97 within three hours,... For example cricket pitch could linked
Direct quotes need a ref at the end of the sentence per WP:MOSQUOTE, so this needs a ref: According to Wisden, " ... Rain had had left question marks about the quality of the pitch, which looked green and enticing for the Australian fast bowlers."
Is there any sort of analysis or reaction to the matches? What did the press in both nations say about the matches / sweep?

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]