# Talk:British Asian Cup

This review is transcluded from Talk:British Asian Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 11:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Initial comments

Steven Finn - Dab.
Expand the name and link Mascarenhas in the first occurence.
Eoin Morgan and Murali Karthik are over-linked in the summary section.
Unlink "London" as it's highly common to everybody.
Most of the stuff in the summary section reads like commentary. Be focused or change the section header.
Except for the scorecard, no where in the article I can see those five runs coming out of the ball hitting the helmet (penalty). Considering that to be a very rare occasion in any form of cricket, I think it needs to be mentioned.
You have explained lbw in the key but not bowled or stumping.
(1 wide - close the parenthesis.
Any reason for italicizing "score/wickets", "Fielder" and "Bowler".
Is "burrp.com" as RS?
"The Guardian", being a printed media should be italicized.
—Vensatry (Ping me) 20:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a week and none of the issues have been resolved yet. Therefore I'm failing this article. Also the nominator seems to be currently inactive and there is nobody to take care of the issues to be dealt with the review. The article can be re-nominated later. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:British Asian Cup/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

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): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I'll review this and I think there are a few issues that needs addressing.

The lead pic needs a caption  Done
Should at least say that Lord's is in England (I know it's obvious but you have to consider the reader who knows little)  Done
It was only one match so it shouldn't be described as a series  Done
Players when they are first mentioned should have their Christian names and their surnames before using only their surnames afterwards (example: Tanvir in the Build up section)  Done
Who decided to move the 2009 CL to South Africa?  Done
"and was a day/night one." sound better to say it was a day/night match in my opinion
 Done Used event instead of match as match has been already used in the sentence.
"Fazal and Asnodkar reached to a 50 run partnership", shouldn't have that to in there  Done
Why were the Royals awarded penalty runs?
Because the ball was deflected by the wicket-keeper's helmet (I have written this)
The pic of Warne seems a bit oversized to me  Done
Ref 1: What makes burrp.com a reliable source (I'm just asking as I've never come across it before)
 Done Removed
Ref 3: IANS or Cricinfo?  Done
It should also have an explanation as to why this wasn't made into an annual event
None of the sources say anything about that.
Check against the previous GA review too  Done
Once these have been sorted, I'll take another look at it.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I do think that if you want improve the article, it would be helpful to find out why this wasn't made into a regular event. Nevertheless, I am happy that this fulfills the GA criteria.  The C of E   God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on British Asian Cup. 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/20130112032020/http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/TopStories/Rajasthan-Royals-to-play-Middlesex-Panthers-in-British-Asian-Cup/Article1-410797.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/TopStories/Rajasthan-Royals-to-play-Middlesex-Panthers-in-British-Asian-Cup/Article1-410797.aspx
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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:52, 26 July 2017 (UTC)