Talk:Alastair Cook/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Wizardman 21:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this is a very nice article, though I have found a few issues:

what does XI mean? First time I've seen that in a cricket article and since i don't knowmuch about the sport it left me confused.

Short for the teams 11 players. Often used in cricket circles. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 22:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You use both Essex County Cricket Club and essex academy interchangeably. I'd stick with just the former to avoid confusion, or is the academy something different?

They are different. I linked to something which may help Spiderone 10:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cook came under criticism throughout 2008 for a lack of centuries but replied with two in 2009, and 95 against Australia to help..." makes it sound like he had 95 centuries, which i'm pretty sure is nearly impossible despite my lack of cricket knowledge.
There's a lot of cites in the lead. If something is cited both in the lead and body, the cite can be removed in the lead. (saves a bit of kb room if nothing else)

Done Spiderone 10:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cook is also a keen musician." What is the 'also' referring to?

Done Spiderone 10:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you're abbreviating and using acronyms, make sure to use the full name in the first mention (i.e. [1])
Numbers ten and under should be written out.
"His exploits in his single season gained him enough attention to be brought in as the opening batsmen for the MCC in 2005 season's opener against County Champions Warwickshire" Infobox says he started in 04; which is right?
"The season opener would not be Cook's only highlight for the year, as The Ashes approached Australia were touring the counties and in a two-day match which sadly did not count towards his first-class statistics, Cook scored a double century went on to take the first wicket of Justin Langer with a catch in the drawn match days after being awarded PCA Young Cricketer of the Year." This sentence is full of issues. First, avoid modifiers like "sadly" in an encyclopedia article. Second, the part 'as the ashes approached australia were touring the counties' doesn't make sense as worded though I think I know what you meant. Third, it can probably be split into two sentences, feels like a run on. Fourth. 'Cook scored a double entry went on to' feels like it's missing a word.
"The back to back Totesport/Pro40 champions saw Cook make only one appearance in that competition, scoring 81*,[34] before being relegated." What does the asterisk signify?

It means not out Spiderone 10:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just reiterating that sentence enhancers like 'disappointing', 'impressive', 'sadly', etc. can't be used. I won't list each example, but they are definitely around.
Reference #16 (The clamour grows throughout the land: pick Cook now) is a deadlink. Either remove the url or, preferably, try to find a place online where it is.

Done Spiderone 10:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure punctuation comes before the ref tags rather than after.
..."being one of only five Englishmen to hit as many centuries in 15 Tests and recorded another half century in the following innings to win his first Man of The Match award." This just isn't worded right.

(I will do 2007 onward after this is completed)

One thing that's iffy to me about the article is that it seems very stat-based. It's easy to fall into this kind of writing, but it does make it hard for a non-cricket fan to follow at times. The biggest general thing I can ask you to do on this article is find someone to give this a full copyedit. I'm not very good at finding the iffy comma placements and the like, yet I'm finding quite a few punctuation issues. As such, there's probably more to be found that I missed. I'll place this on hold and give you 5 days to complete all this. When done, I will review the second half of the article. If it doesn't get done I'll fail it. Wizardman 19:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about it more, and looking at all the issues, I'm going to fail this. Don't be disappointed by it or anything, as this is a very nice article, just a lot of copyediting and structural tweaks are needed before it could be a GA. Just fix the issues I've noted and feel free to re-nominate, I could easily see it passing the second time through. Wizardman 20:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the attention but I had a feeling it'd have too many issues to go through. I'm not good at editing my own work and writing so much prose was no doubt gonna lead to some problems. Thanks anyways. Tony2Times (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]