Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2008 Indian Premier League Final/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was not promoted by Ian Rose 13:06, 28 December 2012 [1].
2008 Indian Premier League Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is ready for FA status. It has already reached GA status and got a copy-edit from GoCE. However it is my first FA nomination and more detailed reviews will be appreciated. Thanks. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 12:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I suggest you read this essay by Tony - the article has several examples of this error. Also, check for redundancy – I saw at least one "in order to", which should just be "to". Graham Colm (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- done I have done a major copy-edit, hope its fine now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on criterion 1A (prose). Well done on taming most of those ugly fused participles but the prose is still not up to our FA standard. It needs more work to improve the flow, make it more engaging, and to reduce the usage of jargon ("The two batsmen ran for a single"). I suspect our American cousins will make neither head nor tail of much of this. I liked: "Winning the toss, Royals' captain Shane Warne opted to field first." (Although "field" might need linking). But this is poor "The Royals failed to build a good opening partnership. However, due to contributions from the middle order, it reached the winning total in the last ball and earned the 2008 Indian Premier League title." The meaning of "partnership" in this context, and "it reached the winning total in the last ball" will be unknown to many readers. The prose suffers from this, "Kings XI. The Kings XI". And, we need to address the problems in English often caused by plurals of teams. Use of the singular "it", or plural "they" as in "it reached", when referring to the teams needs to be varied in the context of the clauses to make the antecedent noun to which it refers clearer. The prose needs more work, sorry. Graham Colm (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I expected that problems will arise with the prose. I would have withdrawn, but I would like to wait for some more review so that I can make the article good enough before the next review. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:17, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawal: I'm afraid this is no-where near ready for FAC. The prose is not in good shape, and I suspect that neither the GA review nor the copy-edit were tight enough on prose generally. A better place for this article may have been peer review, but some FA-experienced copy-editors would be needed for this to have a chance. These are examples from the lead only, and I could find plenty more throughout the article, so addressing each one will not solve the problems here. FAC is not the place to fix up issues like these. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "The 2008 Indian Premier League Final was a day/night Twenty20 cricket match played between the Rajasthan Royals and the Chennai Super Kings on 1 June 2008 at the DY Patil Stadium, Navi Mumbai to determine the winner of the 2008 Indian Premier League, a professional Twenty20 cricket league in India.": Horribly long sentence with far too much going on. Will the general reader know what "day/night game" means? "played" is redundant. I think the description of the IPL is a little lacking.
- "It ended as the Royals defeated the Super Kings by three wickets.": It ended? What else might have happened when one team won?
- "whereas the Super Kings, led by Mahendra Singh Dhoni, stood at the third position.": "stood at" is not good. Why "whereas"? Maybe explain how a 1st placed and 3rd placed team came to meet in a final.
- "They had defeated the Delhi Daredevils and the Kings XI Punjab respectively in the semi-finals.": Who? The last sentence mentions both teams.
- "with a loss of 5 wickets": Never seen this phrasing anywhere before.
- "Batting at number three": We are linking batting, but the general reader will have no idea what number three means.
- "The Royals failed to build a good opening partnership": Why does this need to go in the lead, and why are we reporting something that didn't happen?
- "However, due to contributions from the middle order, it reached the winning total in the last ball and earned the 2008 Indian Premier League title.": Who is "it"? "due to contributions" does not really make sense. Reached "in" the last ball? "Earned"? Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdraw I guess that the main issue is the prose. I will try to fix it and get this back to here. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.