Talk:Cricket: Northamptonshire defeat Warwickshire by 27 runs in Twenty20 match

Reporter notes

image 1 - just turnout pic

image 2 - J Patel bowling to Coetzer

image 3 - Patel bowling to White

image 4 - was Coetzer facing bowling of Woakes

image 5 - was when Azharullah bowled Maddy

image 7 - was the floodlights

Source verification

The first table, should have had 71, not 68 for coetzer because that is what the source says. The ESPN sources says 71 not out to be exact. --LauraHale (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

There is also a question of accuracies for those tables because the score is different for one. --LauraHale (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1944873 [Not ready]

Revision 1944873 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There are some issues with a score not matching the sources and the accuracy of the information presented in the tables. This needs to be gone over again much more extensively by the reporter to verify this. Ideally, because the reviewers are unlikely to be cricket fans, the more links in the tables to aid in information verification for specific terms, the better. 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 1944873 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:04, 7 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There are some issues with a score not matching the sources and the accuracy of the information presented in the tables. This needs to be gone over again much more extensively by the reporter to verify this. Ideally, because the reviewers are unlikely to be cricket fans, the more links in the tables to aid in information verification for specific terms, the better. 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 1945095 [Not ready]

Revision 1945095 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede doesn't explain the event. It doesn't the country, or the sport. (The sport is mentioned in the headline, but the lede should be able to stand on its own.) And the term "Twenty20" in the headline is not explained, nor even mentioned, in the article. A reader who doesn't know Cricket needs to understand, even if xe doesn't wish to read on one xe understands. 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 1945095 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede doesn't explain the event. It doesn't the country, or the sport. (The sport is mentioned in the headline, but the lede should be able to stand on its own.) And the term "Twenty20" in the headline is not explained, nor even mentioned, in the article. A reader who doesn't know Cricket needs to understand, even if xe doesn't wish to read on one xe understands. 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.

Pre-review

The review template indicates that chunks require pre-review with the rest of the story then being written. The article title indicates that the results are in. What exactly is the status of this article? Is the article ready for a full fledged review for publication? If yes, can the review request be changed to standard review? If not, why not? This ambiguity is holding up my desire to review in what is a long review queue. --LauraHale (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1946338 [Passed]

Revision 1946338 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See edits during review. 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 1946338 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See edits during review. 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.

editprotected

{{editprotected}}

Please add Category:Northamptonshire and Category:Warwickshire to this. --Computron (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Category:Northamptonshire added. Unfortunately, atm we don't have a Category:Warwickshire. --Pi zero (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)