Talk:2011 Cricket World Cup: India vs Bangladesh

Review of revision 1181508 [Failed]

Revision 1181508 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: This is written somewhat like an encyclopaedic article; the most glaring example being the very first sentence ("The first match of the 2011 Cricket World Cup was played in Shere Bangla National Stadium, Mirpur.") So far as I can see, the match is ongoing, so the historical perspective and use of the year are inappropriate. Further, this is inaccessible to a general audience, with unexplained jargon terms and partial names of players, which are not even attributed to teams. Comments by reviewer: I like the idea of a live-update article, but it needs a little bit of work. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1181508 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: This is written somewhat like an encyclopaedic article; the most glaring example being the very first sentence ("The first match of the 2011 Cricket World Cup was played in Shere Bangla National Stadium, Mirpur.") So far as I can see, the match is ongoing, so the historical perspective and use of the year are inappropriate. Further, this is inaccessible to a general audience, with unexplained jargon terms and partial names of players, which are not even attributed to teams. Comments by reviewer: I like the idea of a live-update article, but it needs a little bit of work. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1181542 [Failed]

Revision 1181542 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Resubmitting articles for review without the slightest effort to correct issues raised in prior reviews is clear disruption. I think live updating articles are a great idea, but please make some effort on the intro text, as requested previously. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1181542 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Resubmitting articles for review without the slightest effort to correct issues raised in prior reviews is clear disruption. I think live updating articles are a great idea, but please make some effort on the intro text, as requested previously. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1182331 [Passed]

Revision 1182331 of this article has been reviewed by Kamnet (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Great job on the clean-up of this article. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1182331 of this article has been reviewed by Kamnet (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Great job on the clean-up of this article. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Date

The match was on 19 Feb 2011, not 21 Feb. Kindly make the change. --ashwinikalantri ^talk 18:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That maybe the case, but the article was published on the 21. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 18:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)