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 promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 15 August 2020 [1].

---

2010 Twenty20 Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most gut-wrenching cricket matches I've been to. Somerset lost their second final in a row, more or less on a last ball technicality. But really just because the Somerset players didn't know the Laws of Cricket, or at least, forgot them. As always, all comments and criticisms welcome. Harrias ^talk 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb, it is my intention to claim points for this review in the WikiCup.

• "which was the first domestic Twenty20 competition between first-class sides." I suspect that either 'UK' or 'English' needs inserting into that.

• No, that's what made it so notable. It was the first anywhere in the world. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But, optionally, could this be stressed? Eg, by adding 'anywhere in the world'.

• I realise that this is the lead, but "Hampshire reached 62 from the powerplay, but then lost a cluster of wickets. A steadying partnership between Neil McKenzie and Sean Ervine took them to the brink of victory, but another pair of wickets led to a tense finish." could be written more accessibly. Eg, bracket in an explanation of "powerplay", maybe add "six-over" as in the article; add 'lost' after the second "wickets".

• I've added "six-over" and "lost", but avoided a bracketed explanation for the moment. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "The match was eventually tied". I assume that the score rather than the match was tied. How could a tied match produce a winner?

• Weirdly, this match is recorded as a Hampshire win. Typically in cricket, the match is tied and the competition is won via the tie-breaker. For example, the 2019 Cricket World Cup Final, which England won on boundary count, is officially recorded as a tie. Somerset's tie with Hampshire in 2011, when they were knocked out after losing the super-over is also officially recorded as a tie. But anyway, that's beside the point, in this case, apparently, it wasn't a tie. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Background". Perhaps mention 'England' in the first sentence?

• Added. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "the sixteen group-stage fixtures". I count 32, 16 per group.

• Clarified: "..the sixteen group-stage fixtures per team were an increase.."

• "and the final were held". Optional: "held" → 'played'.

• Sure. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "as being one of the favourites". When? Ie, at the start of the competition, or of finals day?

• Clarified. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "though Jimmy Adams entered Finals' Day as the competition's leading run-scorer". Which team did he play for?

• Clarified. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "until the wicket of Samit Patel at the start of the 13th over". Maybe 'until the wicket of Samit Patel fell at the start of the 13th over'?

• Yup, added. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "and leading up to the final, the ESPNcricinfo commentary described conditions as "murky" . It may be me, but the comma made it very difficult for me to parse that phrase.

• I think I reworked the first few sentences so many times that it got a bit garbled. Removed. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "he had faced 16 of the 19 balls". Add 'bowled'.

• Changed to deliveries. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "stodgy": Wiktionary link?

• Added, though the definitions there are unclear for this usage. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But at least you have made an effort.

• "Jimmy Adams and Razzaq opened the batting for Hampshire". Maybe link "opened" to opening batsmen in Glossary of cricket terms?

• I already linked "opener partner" to Opening batsman a couple of paragraphs earlier? Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that. I would still, optionally, suggest adding it again. Duplinks are not prohibited in all circumstances, and this may be one where it would aid a reader.

• "Their total of 62 for one at the end of the six-over powerplay was their second-highest of the competition." Which a non-aficionado won't understand without clicking on "powerplay". Any chance of working a brief explanation into the follow of the text?
• "to act as a runner for him". Oh come on :-) . An explanation of "runner" please. Preferably simple enough for the Somerset players to grasp the concept.

• I've changed this to the simpler "..and another Hampshire player had come out to run for him." Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Runner (cricket).

Added wikilink. Harrias ^talk 07:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "even knew the law". Assuming that only ignorance of that particular rule is being confessed to, could this be clarified. Currently one might gain the impression that very few of the Somerset staff and players knew any of the laws of cricket.

• I've tried to clarify this, how is it? Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine.

• "Somerset won the resulting Super Over"> Why the capitalisation?

• Because that's how our article capitalises it. I've switched it to lowercase, because it looks better that way. Harrias ^talk 08:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "Route to Finals' Day" section: suggest a paragraph break immediately before "Hampshire".

The match and aftermath sections flow well. Background and build up I found a little clunky. Not helped by rather large paragraphs. At times it felt like just a collection of facts. I know that to a large extent that is the nature of the beast, but could the flow be smoothed a little?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some responses to the response you have done so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I've had a bit of a tidy through the background and build-up sections to try and improve the flow, and hopefully tidied any remaining issues; could you have another look over it when you get a chance? Harrias ^talk 12:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a bit better. I have made a couple of tweaks - revert at will. Flow is much better; trying to get an encyclopedia article on a sports event to trip along must be a nightmare.

• Link "byes" to Bye (cricket).
• Link "run for him" to Runner (cricket).

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Gog the Mild. Linked both, and also caught the runner link you asked for above, which I had missed. Harrias ^talk 07:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

• "which was the first domestic Twenty20 competition between first-class sides anywhere in the world", I'm not seeing this anywhere else in the article, so it would need a source here.
  • It's probably excessive detail for this article, so I have removed it completely. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "the head coach of the England men's cricket team", not a major issue but is there a need to distinguish it as the men's team when the article title itself doesn't?
  • In my opinion, the article title itself should. Either way, we lose nothing by being more specific here. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "having won the 2009 Friends Provident Trophy", I can't see this in the refs provided in the paragraph?
  • Added a reference for this. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The Guardian preview refs have the team names as Hampshire Royals and Somerset Sabres. I don't see those names mentioned anywhere here, are they unofficial or not widely used?
  • The Guardian was plain wrong for Somerset: they dropped the "Sabres" nickname the previous year. I have added a bit of information on both of these in though. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Link Southampton in the Build-up section.
  • Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The England and Wales Cricket board is linked for a second time here also.
  • Unlinked. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Patrick Kidd has an available link.
  • Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Kieswetter's opener partner", I'm not overly familiar with cricket terminology, so I may just be out of the loop, but this reads a little oddly. I would of guessed opening partner would have worked better?
  • You're right, I'm not sure what happened there. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The Daily Telegraph is overlinked in the aftermath section.
  • Unlinked. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• BBC Sport is linked in ref 12, but is used before this.
  • Tidied. Harrias ^talk 14:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is what stood out for me on a run through. A great article overall, very little to complain about. Kosack (talk) 13:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: Thanks for the review; I have responded to each of your points above. Harrias ^talk 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm happy with the fixes and answers given above. I have no further issues, so I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM[edit]

(With two disclaimers: (a) I think I reviewed/promoted this to GA (b) I'd like to count this review (if long enough!) for the good ol' WikiCup.)

• As you have 2010 Friends Provident t20 Final in bold as an alt-name, you could create the redirect 2010 Friends Provident t20 Final.
  • Good point, done. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The lead feels a little light when introducing the format. I know it's easy to overlook our non-cricketing friends, but there's no real definition of what T20 is in the lead.
  • Sure, but it is linked, and explained in the prose. I'm not sure that going into too much detail in the lead should be necessary? Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, partly because of the later point, I've reworked this slightly, let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 14:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " won the Twenty20 Cup in 2005." that links to just the tournament, not the "final" which seems odd.
  • Now links to the final. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Somerset chose to bat first a" was there a toss?
  • I had considered this excessive detail for the lead, but sure, added. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " Kieron Pollard was hit in the eye by a bouncer," not clear to non-experts that this was while he was batting.
  • Clarified. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "not subsequently available" not sure there's any need for "subsequently".
  • Fair point, removed. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " six-over powerplay" yeah, so linking "over" here is odd, and a mini sea of blue, so talk about 20 overs and link over before this.
  • Tweaked. Harrias ^talk 14:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As a veteran of the "play-off" GAs, I'm interested if there's a consequence to winning this. The lead just stops, matter of fact, at Hants winning. No more than that. They won, end of story. You get me?
  • English teams didn't take part in the 2010 Champions League Twenty20. So yeah, they won, that was it. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lead. More tomorrow (or today, depending how pedantic we want to be). The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 23:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• " established in England" really? What about Wales?
  • I hate this about cricket. Added. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strictly the source doesn't mention "families" but it does talk about encouraging "women and children" (to the lifeboats first..)
  • I think that is acceptable paraphrasing. It is clear that "families" and "women and children" are synonymous in this case. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " first-class county cricket" sea of blue.
  • I think the negatives of awkward phrasing might outweigh the positives of avoiding a sea of blue here, but I'm open to suggestions. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " fixture list since ... Twenty20 fixtures t" fixture quick repeat.
  • Changed the second to "games". Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Within each group every team played the others within that group" within ... group ... within... group.
  • How would "Within each group every team each other twice"? It adds repetition of "each", but overall that might be better? I can't think of another way that stays tight. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's better. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Harrias ^talk 11:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " in one-day cricket,[6] had never reached the final of the competition before,[7] but had enjoyed recent success in one-day cricket," a few run-ons in this sentence and linking one-day cricket on its repetition...
  • Rephrased a little, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Their spin bowlers... " whose?
  • Clarified. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " took three important wickets" what made them "important"?
  • George Dobell called them "crucial". I think it is acceptable paraphrasing without the need for explanation, but if you're not happy with it, I don't mind cutting it. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure that picture of Adams is of any use to man nor dog.
  • In my opinion, it's better than the pictures we sometimes get of sportsmen 30 years after their retirement; at least it shows a cricketer cricketing... Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "as part of a package of matches" + " All three matches were broadcast"... this sequence implies that the "package" of matches were the three that were broadcast whereas I think you're meaning that the semi-finals and final were the "three matches".
  • Did you address this? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:42, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tweaked things around. Harrias ^talk 11:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "giving them the longest odds of any finalists; 7–2 on" now, I'm no expert by that sounds like they're very much the favourites? 7-2 against would make them joint-outsiders with Essex. Yes, and that's the other thing, they had equal longest odds with Essex.
  • I'm really thrown by this. You are right. Either I have misinterpreted "On Betting", or the odds and the written previews are completely at odds (ha) with each other. I can't really see anyway out of this other than removing it? Harrias ^talk 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I simply think that when it says "final on betting" it doesn't mean those odds are "on". I would treat them as against. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, tweaked this, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 11:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I would link chink in one's armor because I've seen this create all manner of upset with people not really understanding it and thinking it is pure racism.
  • Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "of 9–4 on.[18]" same again, that looks like 9-4 against to me.
  • See above. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Abdul Razzaq " doesn't link to what you want it to.
  • Sorted. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "bowled very economically. Essex bowled well " are you saying the same thing sort of twice here?
  • One is talking about Cork and Razzaq, the other about Essex generally. I don't know, maybe. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "but aggressive play " I understand this to mean aggressive batting, i.e. scoring at a high rate. Do our non-expert cricket readers understand that "aggressive play" equates to chasing down that target with ambitious/flamboyant batting?
  • I think I was trying to avoid repetition of "attacking" which I use twice in the next paragraph. Harrias ^talk 14:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "were chasing a" -> "required".
  • Changed. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Up to the Match section. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "the match was billed" -> the final. And why "billed", wasn't it actually a day/nighter?
  • Trimmed. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "faced the majority of the early deliveries; after three overs, he had faced" faced/faced.
  • Trimmed. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A nuance, 19 deliveries in three overs may confuse people just getting into the swing of things...
  • Added a note. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What's "deep cover"?
  • It's a fielding position: I thought you watched cricket?! But seriously, linked. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " 97 for two" suddenly, out of nowhere, words! I would stick with "for 2".
  • I had missed one, but in the prose the notation, which is explained in the note in the lead, always uses words for the wickets. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "to accelerate the innings" it was really accelerating the score, the innings progressed at the same ball-by-ball pace.
  • Removed it completely. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• What's "extra cover"?
  • As above. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " score "did not really ... significant score" - score repeat.
  • Changed the first to "performance". Harrias ^talk 14:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "149 for four, " see above. Etc.
  • As above. Etc. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "retire injured" is overlinked. In fact it's quite confusing to a non-expert why that's linked to "not out"...
  • Changed the link to Retired (cricket). Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "eye.[26] Pollard's eye" repetitive.
  • Changed the first to "face". Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "opened the batting " is overlinked.
  • This was at the request of reviewers above, as the phraseology was different. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I missed what happened in Somerset's powerplay.
  • Nothing notable. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "conceded 16 runs, while Ben Phillips conceded" conceded repeat.
  • Changed the second to "allowed". Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• You link "inside edge" after not linking "top edge"?
  • I blame the GA reviewer, he asked me to link "inside edge", but never mentioned "top edge". (Linked now...) Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• " scored two byes and two runs, only managing to hit the ball once" just an observation, I love this, and it will cause consternation in some of our readers who think cricket is like baseball or that you have to run if you hit the ball etc.
  • I had to restrain myself from writing a paragraph about each ball of that final over! It was possibly the craziest over of cricket I've ever seen. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• James Hildreth doesn't need to be disambiguated.
  • You can tell which bits I did before and after that April page move! Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "retired hurt (not out)" not out isn't linked here but it is on subsequent lines of the table.
  • Linked, and added a link to Retired (cricket) again too. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "Result: Hampshire won..." isn't it "Result: Match tied; Hampshire won..."?
  • Apparently not. I thought so, but no sources list this as a tied match, it is exclusively listed as a Hampshire victory. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "2011 one-day cup competitions" put "one-day cup competitions" in the pipe to avoid easter egg links.
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Daily Telegraph or The Daily Telegraph?
  • Should be consistent now. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Be consistent with linking your sources, Wisden seems linked every time, newspapers seem linked just first time. Apart from the ones that aren't....!
  • Should be consistent now. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Is ref 30 really BBC Sport?
  • Indeed it is. Harrias ^talk 14:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it. This'll go into the ol' WikiCup melting pot if you don't mind. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:58, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for that. I think I've addressed (or at least queried) everything now, let me know what you think. Harrias ^talk 14:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Curiously when you say "got rid of" (yuck, reword) their nickname in 2009, the 2010 Guardian source calls them the "Somerset Sabres"! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I addressed this in Kosack's points above. The Guardian was just wrong. It was quite common in 2010, the media didn't really pick up on it, and kept calling them the Sabres anyway. Harrias ^talk 11:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (And reworded). Harrias ^talk 11:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Cheers, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 11:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: When you get a chance, could you take a look over, and see if my edits have resolved your concerns? Harrias ^talk 10:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me, happy to support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

spotchecks not done

• FN24: the commentary itself does identify the speaker, who should be attributed
• FNs24 and 33 appear to be the same. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria. It looks like ESPNcricinfo have changed the formatting on the page slightly so that the direct links to each innings don't work anymore, so I have merged the references. I could probably have found archived versions instead, but I don't think there is a real need. Thanks for highlighting the authors; I thought they normally listed them at the start, so I hadn't looked at the end. I have added them in. Harrias ^talk 19:03, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: If you get a chance, could you take another look over, and see if my changes have resolved your concerns? Harrias ^talk 10:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

All images are free. Image placement meets MOS. (t · c) buidhe 12:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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.

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