This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is the first article of this type that I have worked on, and I would like to get to get it up to GA (and maybe eventually FA) standard. My previous work has all been on cricketer biographies, so I'd like some input on how this can be improved. Specifically, information on whether I need greater detail on each competition (ie more about the actual games), or whether the balance is mostly alright as it is. Generally, my use of language, grammar and the overall layout of the article.
I think it would be good to know what their team structure was, eg 4/5 bowlers, 1/2/3? spinners....etc If the pitch at Somerset is more spin or pace oriented as well. Apart from that, their limited overs strategy is of interest, whether they go really fast at the start or accumulate all their resources for the last 20% of the innings. I think more detail in the FC is especially desirable, and in the T20 section it describes some important points in the matchs without explaining what the strengths and weaknesses of the team were YellowMonkey (new photo poll)
03:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comments from TRM.
Lead is a little brief.
Yeah, I was coming to this conclusion myself!
Avoid bold links.
What would you suggest to avoid it? Not linking Somerset County Cricket Club , or not having it in bold?
"The 2009 season also saw the retirement of Justin Langer from the team, relinquishing the captaincy to Marcus Trescothick for the following 2010 season." no need to say both "following" and "2010".
Are all the squad styles, dates of birth etc, referenced somewhere?
No, I'll add them to the table.
Tresco's caption needs a full stop
Fixed.
"The pitch at the County Ground, Taunton did not help their efforts, the imbalance in favour of the batsmen" reads a little ORish unless you have a specific ref.
Will look for one, I know there's something about it!
Thanks for your comments. I've addressed some of your issues already, while others I will either do with other edits, or have a look at later. How do you feel the article works as a whole; your points so far have been technical in nature, but do you feel there is enough content, that the scope is about right, or should I include more (or less) detail on any issues? Harriastalk15:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)reply