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)

• "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)

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)

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