Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/January 2025

Men's T20 World Cup

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the T20I World Cup, one of the most watched cricket World Cups organized by ICC held biennially since 2007 along with the ODI World Cup which is being held since 1975. Although so far none is FA now (ODI WC was FA since 2007, but it was demoted 2 years ago). Now I want to make this an exemplary one for cricket tournaments... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• There are lots of references in the lead. These are not needed if the facts are cited in the body (which I presume they are.....?)

  Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• " It is held every 2 years since its inauguration in 2007" => " It has been held every two years since its inauguration in 2007"
• "with the exception of 2011, 2018 and 2020" - this doesn't make sense, because the last two of those years are not a multiple of two years from 2007

  I did some re-wording to it. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  New version is not grammatically correct. "It was held on every odd year from 2007 to 2009, and then on it has been held on every even year " => "It was held in every odd year from 2007 to 2009, and since then it has been held in every even year " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The 2011 edition of the tournament was preponed" - "preponed" is a very obscure word (I had never seen it before and had to consult a dictionary to confirm that it actually existed). I would suggest "The 2011 edition of the tournament was brought forward"

  I have heard the word "prepone" times before, it's actually in Cambridge dictionary, Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com. It means to do something at an earlier time than was planned or is usual. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  I understand that, but as I mentioned, it's an incredibly obscure word. I had literally never seen/heard it in my life before today. I think a less obscure word would make things easier for readers, 90% of whom I believe will not be familiar with this word either -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "to 2010 due to its replacement with the ICC Champions Trophy 2010" - the 2011 event was moved to 2010 because it was replaced with a different event also happening in 2010? I don't understand this.....

  Done: It was supposed to mean, "the 2011 event was moved to 2010, to replace another event" Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• "was caused after the 5th Edition" - no reason for capital E, "edition" is not a proper noun
• "Champions Trophy, scheduled to be hosted by Pakistan in 2008 was delayed" => "Champions Trophy, scheduled to be hosted by Pakistan in 2008, was delayed"
• "busied with bilateral commitments in 2018." - what are "bilateral commitments"?

  Clarified it now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  It now says "bilateral cricket events". What is a bilateral cricket event (as opposed to any other type of cricket event).....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  Tour matches between two nations (home and visitor); while Tri-nation series are played between three nations and others tournaments would feature at least five teams. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 02:55, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• "taking place 5 years after" => "taking place five years after"
• "Three teams, West Indies (2012, 2016), England (2010, 2022) and India (2007, 2024) have won" => "Three teams, West Indies (2012, 2016), England (2010, 2022) and India (2007, 2024), have won"
• That's what I got just on the lead. I'll come back and take a look at the body later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: all else done so far. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

More comments

• "sought another one-day competition to fill with the younger generation" - "to fill with the younger generation" doesn't make sense in English. I would suggest "to appeal to the younger generation"
• "proposed a 20-over per innings game" - wikilink over and innings
• "Soon after with the adoption of Twenty20 matches by other cricket boards, " => "Soon after, with the adoption of Twenty20 matches by other cricket boards, "
• "and Stanford 20/20 tournament" => "and the Stanford 20/20 tournament"
• "and the financial incentive in the format." - what was this financial incentive?

  It refers to getting more sponsorships etc. as opposed to the longer formats. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "The West Indies regional teams competed in what was named the Stanford 20/20 tournament" - no need to relink the tournament, as you linked it in literally the previous sentence
• "before he was convicted of fraud for a massive Ponzi scheme" - can you link "Ponzi scheme"? I for one have absolutely no idea what this term means
• Thinking about it, do we really need that level of detail on the Stanford stuff? I feel like the whole of the second paragraph under "Domestic tournaments" could be condensed into a single sentence essentially saying "T20 tournaments were also created in other countries"

  I have now removed the additional content about Stanford 20/20. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "showed him a mock Penalty card" - no reason for capital P on penalty
• "in which case it will be held the year before" => "in which case it would be held the year before"
• "The 2010 World Twenty20 tournament, which was brought forward from 2011 to replace the ICC Champions Trophy was held in West Indies" => "The 2010 World Twenty20 tournament, which was brought forward from 2011 to replace the ICC Champions Trophy, was held "
• In that same sentence, it should be "held in the West Indies"
• ", where England defeated Australia by 7 wickets" - in the final, presumably?
• "The 2012 World Twenty20 was won by the West-Indies" - there is no hyphen in West Indies
• "The 2012 edition was to be expanded into a 16 team format however this was reverted to 12" => "The 2012 edition was to be expanded into a 16-team format, however this was reverted to 12"
• "The 2014 tournament, held in Bangladesh was the first" => "The 2014 tournament, held in Bangladesh, was the first"
• "However the top eight full member teams in the Men's T20I Team rankings on 8 October 2012 were given a place in the Super 10 stage" - no need for the word "however" here
• "but was later dropped" => "but this was later dropped"
• "With Australian international travel restrictions not expected to be lifted until 2021" - if the tournament was scheduled for 2021 anyway, why would this prevent it being in Australia?

  @ChrisTheDude: it was before the tournament was postponed, given the re-opening of Australian travel restrictions were unsure, they rellocated the tournament to India. I also made a little change to the sentence, see if it makes sense now... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• "although India (via BCCI) " - write the name in full
• "as well as the 2030 tournament in England, Ireland and Scotland following" => "and the 2030 tournament in England, Ireland and Scotland following"
• Back for more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

  All else done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Even more comments

• "India won the hosting rights of 2021 edition" => "India won the hosting rights of the 2021 edition"
• "but due to COVID-19 pandemic" => "but due to the COVID-19 pandemic"
• "the 2030 edition is to be co-hosted by United Kingdom, Ireland and Scotland" - firstly, it should be the United Kingdom, secondly this does not make sense as written because Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, so you can't say "the United Kingdom and Scotland". It would be like saying "the event will be hosted by India and Gujarat"

  @ChrisTheDude: It was supposed to be: "England, Ireland and Scotland" which I have changed now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "and has been retained until 2022" => "and was retained until 2022"
• "The number of teams qualifying through the World Twenty20 Qualifier had varied" => "The number of teams qualifying through the World Twenty20 Qualifier varied"
• "The Preliminary stage or group stage" - no reason for capital P
• I don't understand the chronology of the manufacture of the trophy. You say "It was designed and manufactured by Links of London,", but then you list three different manufacturers, of which Links were the second.....
• England players image caption is not a sentence so should not have a full stop
• Ref for 2024 attendance is not correctly formatted

  It was just added a while ago, already fixed it. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "As of the 2024 tournament, Twenty-four nations" - no reason for capital T
• "is the Super 8 appearance by United States" => "is the Super 8 appearance by the United States"
• "while the least result by a Test playing nation" => "while the worst result by a Test playing nation"
• "No teams have yet won the tournament as hosts, best performance by a host nation" => "No teams have yet won the tournament as hosts; the best performance by a host nation"
• "No title winners have yet defended their title in the following edition, best performance" => "No title winners have yet defended their title in the following edition; the best performance"
• "who made their debuts in 2009 and 2010 editions" => "who made their debuts in the2009 and 2010 editions"
• "while, MS Dhoni holds the record" => ", while MS Dhoni holds the record" (the comma should be before "while" not after)
• "while, Simon Taufel has" - same here
• "while, Chris Gayle of West Indies holds" - and here
• "while, Fazalhaq Farooqi of Afghanistan " - and here
• "while, Marlon Samuels holds" - and here

  Fixed the commas, will do the rest soon. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• "Pat Cummins is the only player to have taken more than one hat-tricks " => "Pat Cummins is the only player to have taken more than one hat-trick"
• "Former Indian captain Virat Kohli has scored the most runs (1,292), highest average (58.72) and Most 50+ scores (15) in the T20 World Cup." - no reason for capital M on the second "most"
• "Winning Captain" - no reason for capital C, "captain" is not a proper noun -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
• "Former West Indies' captain Daren Sammy" - no reason for apostrophe on West Indies

  @ChrisTheDude: All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

  Also, I've added some new stuff over here; you might want to take a look at it as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Airship

I am sorry, but I am going to oppose this nomination based on prose and sourcing. ChrisTheDude's review above shows that the article was brought to FAC with many simple grammatical issues, and significant prose issues still remain. For example, the WP:LEAD does not adequately summarise the article, the "Background" subsection is far too long and detailed, there is duplication of prose on hosts in the History and Hosts sections, and there are constant MOS violations throughout the article. In addition, the sourcing is really poor—in no way can it be called "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature [using] high-quality reliable sources". Cricket is a global game—there are large numbers high-quality books, articles, and in-depth reports available, but this article prefers to rely on basic news stories and cricinfo data dumps. Would seriously suggest a GA nomination, and if the nominator is serious about FA, the article needs a total revamp. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I am afraid that Airship is right, more work is needed on this than is reasonable at FAC and so I shall be archiving it. The usual two-week hiatus will apply. GAN, GoCER, a mentor and PR would all benefit the article; as would the nominator reviewing a few FACs. In the later case I would suggest also following all of the other reviews for any nomination you review. Note what each comment by a reviewer is and what response or change it elicits from the nominator, then consider whether anything similar applies to your article. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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 archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 January 2025 [1].

---

Virtual Self (EP)

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Third time's the charm!

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the past nominations' and PR participants (LunaEclipse, Heartfox, Dylan620, and Dxneo) to participate in this nomination if they wish.

Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Support from Dylan620

My concerns from the last nomination and the PR have been addressed, and I am happy to support this time around. Best of luck with the FAC! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review for this article, but I hope that these comments are helpful:

• This part, (releasing his debut studio album Worlds (2014), a deviation from his earlier sound), is unclear as there is not any context provided for this "earlier sound" or the sound for Worlds.
  • Fixed
• I am uncertain about this part, (The alias is represented by two characters created by Robinson). I understand that it is focused on the different tempos for the EP's songs and it does follow after sentences on the EP's genre and sounds, but the mention of the persona comes off rather abruptly. I wonder if there is a way to make this transition more smoothly.
  • Fixed
• Why is the persona used for this sentence, ( Virtual Self's visuals present cryptic messages and a mysterious atmosphere.), while throughout the earlier sentences reference Porter Robinson by his name?
  • This part describes Virtual Self's visuals, which are different than the ones Robinson uses for work under his own name.
    • I understand that, but I find the shift from Robinson to Virtual Self to being rather jarring. The alias is introduced at the end of the lead's first paragraph, then the second paragraph talks about Robinson and two different characters (Pathselector and Technic-Angel), and the alias is only brought up again at the end of that paragraph. To me at least, it does not feel cohesive. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
      • Fixed Skyshiftertalk 10:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
• For this part, (Porter Robinson was initially known for his "aggressive" electro and complextro sound), attribution would need to be provided in the prose to clearly identify who is saying this quote.
  • This is more of a general descriptor, so removed quotes.
• I do see a fair amount of repetition in the prose. For the first paragraph in the "Background" section, "released" is repeated for ("In 2012, he released 'Language', his first song" and "Two years later, Robinson released his"), and the first sentence from that section has "with releases such as", which adds to the repetition. The second paragraph from the same section has repetition with "follow-up" and there is repetition in this sentence, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea, as he could not come up with new ideas or create anything he was satisfied with.) I would double-check the article for this type of repetition.
  • Fixed
• For this sentence, (It was acclaimed and had an impact on the electronic dance music scene.), I would clarify who is making these claims. Is it critics, fans, etc.? Clearer attribution would help, and it would avoid having this sentence be in passive voice.
  • Done
• I am uncertain about the use of the word "idea" in this part, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea), as this is referencing something Robinson himself thought. I just do not think "idea" works for something that Robinson himself is describing about his own music.
  • Robinson resisted the idea of creating a similar sounding follow-up. Maybe it's because I'm not fluent in English, but I don't see the problem here. Could you suggest an alternative?
    • I could just being overly nitpick-y with this part. For me, when I read this part, I was initially unsure of what was meant by "idea", but it could just be me, and I cannot really think of a direct substiution at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
• I am uncertain about this part, (Robinson realized that musical tropes from the early 2000s, albeit obsolete,). How can a "musical trope" become obsolete?
  • Fixed
• Going back to the repetition point from earlier, I would see if you could avoid saying Robinson's last name twice in this sentence: (In August 2016, Robinson released "Shelter", a collaboration with Madeon that Robinson believed to be successful.)
  • Fixed
• The last paragraph of the "Background" section comes off as a bit list-y with the dates, specifically with the repetition of the "In X year". I would see if there is a way to better and more cohesively represent this information.
  • Fixed

Best of luck with this FAC. I wanted to leave these comments as I do notice issues with the prose in the lead and the little bit of the actual article that I have read. Based on what I have read, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA/FAC, but I am not going to oppose as I have not read the entire article. I hope that this is helpful, and I hope you have a great rest of weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, "I am going to oppose"? Missing a "not" based on the context...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that and notifying me about that. Apologies for missing that. I have revised my original comment to add that in. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

@Aoba47: thank you for your comments! Sorry for the delay. Skyshiftertalk 23:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping and for the message. No need to apologize. I hope that my comments are helpful. I think that the overall prose in the article could use further work, but as I have said above, I will not oppose based on that. Apologies for not being able to do a full review at this time, but I hope that this FAC gets more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

And just to be clear, I hope that this does not come across as too negative as I respect and value your work on this article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Coordinator comment

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Pending spotcheck by NegativeMP1

Hi, I'll try to take a look at this soon. I'm not sure what good my review only will be able to do at this point, but let's still see what we can do here. λ NegativeMP1 06:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't really find anything wrong with the prose. Eerything seems perfectly fine and understandable to me as someone who has little to no idea who Porter Robinson is, let alone his work. So instead, I will be doing a spotcheck of the article, which I will get done soon. λ NegativeMP1 01:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from TechnoSquirrel69

I'm mostly staying away from reviewing this due to my prior involvement with the article, but I want to query the long list of genres at the top of § Composition. I feel like these sentences bring the flow of the prose to a grinding halt and don't provide very useful information to the reader — the article never elaborates on how these genres influence the composition. Also, in my opinion, electronic music critics tend to be far too flippant with the genre names they throw out anyway. Can this list be boiled down or relegated to a footnote or something? Good luck with the rest of the nomination, Skyshifter! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69, thank you for commenting! I've added all genres with one ref only to a footnote. I think this will already help a lot! Skyshiftertalk 17:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! I think the list can be shortened yet further and still have equivalent value to the article. Trance, for example, is mentioned three times in this section, not counting the "hard trance" mention (not sure if there's a difference or not). I'll leave the final decision on the consolidation up to you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

• Four weeks in and little sign of a consensus to promote forming so I am regretfully archiving. The usual two-week hiutus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: could I get a leave to renominate the article? I don't see the hiatus as necessary, as the FAC was attracting supports; it just didn't attract many participants. NegativeMP1 was about to provide his spotcheck and was positive of the prose. Skyshiftertalk 22:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.