Talk:Wisden Trophy

message: 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)

message: 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"  
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. 
**Generally speaking, there are many sentences which have grammatical issues. If you are having trouble, please ask for help.  (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  
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" 
** 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.  but kept full names in pictures 
** Put refs immediately after punctuation with no space. Do not put spaces between consecutive refs. 
**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..."  corrected layout; changed potential POV slogans
* Lead
**Should not discuss the rules of Test cricket or talk about other stuff like Ashes.  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.  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?  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.  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.      
**Needs information about the actual trophy and organisation. At the moment it is simply 95%+ match result.  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.  
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)
thread_title:  GA On Hold 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA Pass 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Adding links to Wikipedia pages that don't exist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA status concerns