Wikipedia:Peer review/Cricket World Cup/archive2

Cricket World Cup

This is a Peer Review for the article Cricket World Cup which now bears quite a lot of the qualities presented by other FAs such as FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup and may better them in some aspects. Please provide constructive criticism for it. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barring any good reason, I think that each tournament history should have roughly the same length, so I expanded the 96, 99 and 03 ones to match that of 1975. I think we need to hit the books for some of the other ones. As far as copyediting goes, ALoan and Nichalp are the best ones for the job who have some interest in cricket. Every fact should be supported by refs, so there's a lot of work ahead. Hopefully if this makes FA, it will be allowed on the main page anyway despite having no free pictures due to the histroical coincidence. I like long articles, so I suppose more detail is never a bad thing (My only FA happens to be 100kb, but that's because there wasn't any logical fork - Ian Thorpe) as this article is 42kb (not too big) and seems to have a lot of tables etc, which we don't want to dominate the article too much. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a little too much about individual competitions than that is strictly necessary. The extensive details can be left to the article about the tournament. There should be more about things like the background of the world cups and the political issues. Re politics, it should be difficult to get it from a single source as each one (incl. Wisden) has a strong POV one way or the other. We will have to read up all the arguments and present a summary.

We should not get too chatty about miscellaneous facts. The tournament reports contain phrases like "1987 Cricket World Cup held in India and Pakistan was the first World Cup hosted outside of England." "The 1996 championships were held in the Indian subcontinent for the second time", "The 1999 event returned to England after sixteen years", which are all unnecessary because it will be obvious to the reader from the earlier paragraphs. Or if you look at the Cricket_World_Cup#Performance_of_teams, there is some text and a table accompanying it. There is very little in the text that cannot be deduced from the table.

Not happy about some sources and the way they are interpreted. The media coverage has the line "The Cricket World Cup is televised in over 200 countries, with over 2 billion television viewers". I had added an invisible comment to it but somebody deleted it silently. This comes from http://www.cricketworldcup.com/icc-marketing.html which is a marketing site which means that we cannot readily believe everything that it says. According to List of countries, there are only 202 sovereign countries, so "over 200 countries" is at the least an exaggeration. A reading of the source would show "over 200 countries" and "televised to over 2 billion" are just estimates for 2007 (and that coming from a promotional site) and not facts. It is best to get the data for 2003 if we want to put it here. I have already corrected some misinterpretations like this and there may be more. Tintin (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of Tintin's comments. I believe someone with little knowledge of cricket and the World Cup will prefer reading a concise but well written article rather than a detailed one which may bore them. I suspected the media coverage section will cause problems. I couldn't find any good statistics for the 03 WC on the web so we may have to turn to the books for sources. Tony Cozier, a Cricinfo journalist, recently wrote "History of the Cricket World Cup," which will probably have the figures needed. I also agree with avoiding the hosts redudancies pointed out by Tintin. In addition, we should find someone with relative little knowledge of cricket and the World Cup to copyedit or comment on the article. I have a feeling some parts of the article won't be understood well by those outside the cricket world. Gizza^Chat ^© 12:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this article to be of the similar formats than the two FAs FIFA World Cup and Rugby World Cup. I don't think that infoboxes are needed in every article. A nice picture of the cup would do great as a lead image. CG 13:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes, the infobox doesn't add anything in this case. All of the information in the infobox is redundant. The format of the article is loosely based on the other FAs in terms of headings and structure. Apart from the infobox, the structure is almost identical. Gizza^Chat ^© 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sub section about 1987 - present in the History section is fine for now but needs to be modified later with about one or two sentences that summarizes each world cup rather than a whole paragraph for each when there's more world cups held (with expceptions where there needs to be more because its something that becomes big part of history for the world cup) or that section would be come too big. But prior to the world cup and the prudential world cups sections are fine as there are big part of the world cup and is basically the main history of it.

Also, I think the infobox summarizes the whole article for people who doesn't have time to read through the whole article. And in that list(replying to comment from above) it says "243 entities considered to be countries" and so I don't think it's an exaggeration as it's not taking about sovereign states. I agree with Gaza in that someone with little knowledge about cricket and the World Cup should comment on this article so we can edit out the things that would be confusing to the people not really into cricket.--Thugchildz

I don't believe the infobox needs removing because it is more informative then a picture of the world cup alone. It is not more or less useful than a biography article having an infobox about the person's death, birth and occupation etc. As all these things are presented in the article itself. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i guess it passed as far as the article being too confusing to the casual people(not into cricket much). and i quote "

Finally read the article. It looks like a pretty good summary. I'm not sure what they mean by "platonic dimensions", or whatever it was. That could use a one-line explanation. It was interesting to note the subtle variations in the short form of the game since 1975. If that version had existed in the 1800s, maybe cricket would be more popular in the U.S. It once was popular, but if they were playing 5-day matches, that would have limited its audience, as most folks had to work for a living, but they could see the occasional baseball game, and you know who won that duel. d:) Wahkeenah 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

so i guess it's ok on that--Thugchildz