Talk:Ireland cricket team/GA1

GA Review

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

Lead

• "Since then, Ireland have gained a reputation for giant killing." Is there a wikilink or a link to wikidictionary for "giant killing"? I know what it means, but others may not do.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Ireland are an Associate member" Should "Associate" be capped?

It is in all the literature, although I admit it is counter-intuitive. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

History

• "In the 1830s, the game began to spread; many of the clubs which were founded in the following 30 years are still in existence today." Needs a ref.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "In the 1850s and 1860s Ireland was visited for the first time by touring professional teams. Ireland's first match against the Marylebone Cricket Club – the M.C.C. – was in 1858." Needs a ref

Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The game increased in popularity until the early 1880s. The land war in the 1880s resulting from the Irish Land Commission and a ban on playing "foreign" games by the Gaelic Athletic Association set back the spread of cricket. The ban was not lifted until 1970." Needs ref.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The Irish played yearly first-class games with the Scots with regularity, only interrupted by wars, up until 1999," Surely by definition the game is regular? I would suggest re-wording this.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "They did, in fact, take a liking to the West Indies" "In fact" is redundant. Secondly, what do you mean by "take a liking" This sentence seems far too informal to me, and doesn't stick to the facts.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "However, with a relatively good squad of players greatly improved in standard from those of the 1960s and 1970s," POV. Needs a reference to back it up.

Removed. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "324/9" Is this the accepted notation for scores? It's different above.

It's acceptable to write it as either 324/9 or 324 for 9, but for the sake of consistency I've changed every occurrence in the article to 123/4 format. Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Ireland won their first ICC Cup title in October 2006 with a six wicket win over Kenya." Should this not be 2005?

Quite right, corrected. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "overcame a gritty and proud Irish team" POV and bordering on WP:PEACOCK.

Good point, changed. Nev1 (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

One Day Internationals

• The squad template shouldn't be used here. It's for navigation on the individual players.

I like it, it provides a nice way of displaying the squad that played, but it could always be removed if you think it's inappropriate. Nev1 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it per WP:NAVBOX. Although I can understand why you feel it should be there, such reasoning doesn't pass WP:ILIKEIT. Secondly, over time, with more World Cups, the page could end up littered with similar navboxes. Peanut4 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "Ireland had an excellent World Cup debut in the 2007 tournament." POV. Needs a reference.

Removed. Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The result is regarded as one of the biggest shocks in international cricket history." Probably worth adding some quotes to back this up.

Replaced with reaction to Ireland's overall performance in the tournament being a bit of s surprise. Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• What's BCCI?

Expanded to "Board of Control for Cricket in India". Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "But because of Zee TV turning it down at the last minute," Informal. Could be improved. How about "However, because Zee TV turned it down ..."

Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "In addition to lucrative staging rights, Ireland also played one-off matches at Stormont against the two teams. Missing several players from their World Cup squad, Ireland lost both games." Needs a reference.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Governing body

• "In 2007, it announced major changes in order to bring it in-line with the main cricket governing bodies." "In order" is redundant.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The Irish cricket team was – and still is – an amateur side and most of the players had full-time jobs with commitments conflicting with cricket.[42] After the World Cup there were delays in paying the players which resulted in them ignoring the press in protest to their treatment after an Intercontinental Cup match against Kenya." I don't understand how they're amateur if they get paid. Surely that makes them semi-professional?

Cricinfo always describes the Ireland team as amateur. They certainly don't get paid on a full time basis, and I think what they do get paid is more compensation for the work they miss in their jobs than a wage.

On the basis of this, I'd say definitely amateur. (I'll add the link to the article). Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Tournament

• Don't captialise WON per WP:ALLCAPS.

Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Records

• Do you have the full dates for the highest scores?

Done. Nev1 (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

General

• Remove the overwikilinking. You only need to link articles once. For instance, Scotland is repeatedly linked.

Done some, although I'm wondering how much should be removed from the records section? Nev1 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite a bit to do, but it's pretty good, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Meets all the GA criteria. If you want to push the article further, I would suggest getting a peer review and try get some input from the cricket project members.

Just a note on the references I asked for. There isn't a need to reference every sentence, if one paragraph is covered by the same reference. However, it's best to have too many rather than too few references.

Anyway, well done and good luck with future work on the article. Peanut4 (talk) 22:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)