Talk:2019 Cricket World Cup/Archive 1

Why arent we allocating Wales to the list of host nations if we continually keep saying the 1999 and 2003 were given a myriad of nations when the main hosts were England and South Africa and for pure marketing, media and other purposes was called England 99 and South Africa 2003? If we are going to be silly by listing all nations the 1983's should have Wales and the 2003 2015 Rugby World Cup should be Wales, England, Scotland, France 1999 then Wales and England 2015? It is pedantic and ridiculous plus clutters up the boxes with too many flags and listed nations. Just place a NOTE and stating "multiple venues in..." instead.--Auxodium II (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the rankings, can't we interactively act with the official ICC website so that rankings get updated automatically? SheikhAzizulHakim (talk) 14:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Having added a load of information on fixtures today, I have realised that the linked reports state that the fixtures still need to be approved by the main ICC board. There is nothing on the ICC website about this either. Should the fixtures be deleted as WP:CRYSTAL until an official announcement is made? From cricinfo :"...the schedule, were approved by the ICC' chief executives committee (CEC) during the ICC's quarterly meetings on Monday and Tuesday. The ICC Board, which meets on Thursday, is yet to ratify the CEC's decisions." Spike 'em (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree they shouldn't be there until officially ratified. Comment them out if you want. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Done Spike 'em (talk) 07:06, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Moot point now, as the ICC have confirmed them - they seem to match to the original list from yesterday. Thanks to Spike for doing the legwork in adding them here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

136.2.16.184 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Points table has already divided in 2 groups, which is not correct. 136.2.16.184 (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

All 10 teams are placed in single group only as per tournament format. 42774 (talk) 17:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we really need 2 tables showing the same information? The only difference seems to be that 1 has the number of matches, the other a fairly unhelpful photo. Spike 'em (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

True, no of matches can be added in table with photos like 2016 ICC World Twenty20 42774 (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Tables merged, though I cant get it to sit alongside the map. May try reformatting / adjusting widths later Spike 'em (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Just because other articles fail to follow clear guidelines, it does not mean it has to be accepted here. Please explain why WP:DUPLINK and WP:OVERLINK don't apply to this article. Please try to avoid WP:OTHER and show some clear discussion which lead to a consensus to ignore these guidelines. There is no discussion of this on the 2015 article, so please tell me where it is. Spike 'em (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Moving the comment below from my talk page to keep things in one place. If you don't want this here, then feel free to delete it. Spike 'em (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It was in the Pakistan tour of England and Ireland 2016 talkpage, Talk:Pakistani cricket team in England and Ireland in 2016 where Lugnuts asked me to go with linking venues after a discussion citing logic, you can check there... Plus I was going by the past articles of 2015 World Cup and so on where every venue name is linked which there must have been some kind of a long standing convention or consensus as might have been the case so it is indeed important and relevant in this case to consider past precedents... Cricket246 (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think 2 people deciding to do something (whilst even admitting that it may be in breach of guidelines) on a little visited page counts as forming a consensus that other people need to take note of. Spike 'em (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency and completeness it can be done in that way... If you can't link the stadium name 20 times in one article why not the venue name?? Why preferential treatment in that aspect then? Cricket246 (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to de-link repeated mentions of the venues in the list of matches, but feel they are at least directly relevant to the match in a way that the location is not. The MOS states that links are not meant to be used as a method of formatting / to make the page look nice / consistent. Spike 'em (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok fair enough argument Spike 'em. So as per this protocol would it be okay for me to de-link the venues in 2015 and 2011 World Cup pages?? Cricket246 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It says "Worst world cup ever" for some reason. How do we change that? Linkiscool99 (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Where do you see that? It is not in the page source, and I can't see it when I call up on my phone. Spike 'em (talk) 12:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Linkiscool99 and Spike 'em: It was coming from the Wikidata source, the description of which had been vandalised. I've reverted it on Wikidata. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't "Teams that do pass the league stage" read "do not"?

The source seemingly has a typo, so following the text used, the current page is verified (if not true!) If you can find an RS stating "not" then we can change it. Spike 'em (talk) 16:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Although see www.icc-cricket.com/media-releases/1221724 "do not" makes more sense? As teams 5 through 10 (6 teams) wouldn't be known until 1 through 4 qualify for the semi final? I think the ICC web page is wrongly worded!

Sorry very new to this - I believe I have just corroborated your statement - it's best to keep to the facts!

This edit request to 2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Zimbabwe despite hosting the qualifying tournament failed to reach the final and will miss the World Cup for the first time since 1983." to "Zimbabwe who hosted the qualifying tournament failed to reach the final and will miss the World Cup for the first time since 1983." 117.198.247.103 (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 05:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Why to mention about the political incident of Pulwama? if you include this then there are several incidents related to the worldcup. This is yet another cheap attempt to defame Pakistan. This is also against the ethics of ICC. Further International hockey already accused India of associating political matters with sports by not issuing visa to players. Hammad (talk) 14:11, 07 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.225.114.67 (talk)

It probably shouldn't be in the lead, but the paragraph seems to adhere to NPOV to me. Spike 'em (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the article about

• what points are awarded for what result
• why a No Result match is not rescheduled

...unless I haven't read closely enough. Tony Holkham (Talk) 10:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I've added some details to the Group stage intro, let me know if you think more is needed. As so many games have been rained of it is probably worth adding a quote from ICC about why reserve days weren't considered possible. Spike 'em (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Spike 'em. On the latter, would be interesting to know why. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Quote / ref added. Spike 'em (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Separate to, but linked with previous: add an edit-notice (i.e. Template:Livescores editnotice) for the remaining duration of the event. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done See above, consensus on WP:CRIC is to update scores at intervals (including change of innings). Spike 'em (talk) 13:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The 'potential venues' is limited to test/ODI stadia but shouldn't it be expanded? Last time England hosted it I think all 18 county grounds plus venues in Scotland, Ireland and Holland were used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd (talk • contribs) 09:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As we see the matches are are not played due to rain so you could change venue where there is no rain in England only Pavan1224 (talk) 05:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Is this a suggestion to improve the article or a question about climate in the UK? If the latter, then there is nowhere in UK that you can guarantee that it will not rain, at any time of the year. Spike 'em (talk) 06:51, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

"Innings break" is not a proper result (and in any case it ceases to be accurate only a few minutes after being added...); also editors should refrain from adding live scores in any case; this has been discussed and resolved for football, see Template:Editnotices/Page/2019 FIFA Women's World Cup - the same should apply for cricket or any other sport, really. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

It is consensus on WP:CRIC to only update the scores at breaks in play (either intervals or change of innings). Spike 'em (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The edit notice below quotes a consensus reached at WP:FOOTY which is a separate project, so unless there is an overall WP consensus on this, then the CRIC consensus is equally valid. Spike 'em (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:CRIC#Live scores started, so see there for wider commentsSpike 'em (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

For the love of organisation, someone please put a cross table in there that shows which teams have already played which team and the results, akin to this :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018%E2%80%9319_Premier_League#Results — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.48.4.222 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

There is already a full fixture / result list; a cross-tab would be over-kill IMO. Spike 'em (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would be nice to have this visually summarized that way; it seems especially strange that the much less useful "Tournament Progress" exists. Whether I'm actually going to spend the time doing it myself is an open question. 12.221.141.99 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I will throw my two cents and stay that the only time that the progression section comes up is for the Indian Premier League and this World Cup so really this section isn't really needed full stop. In terms of the cross table, that would be viable if they were playing home and away but they are not so that is also off the table. HawkAussie (talk) 08:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree the progression table is pointless, but I think a cross table would be really helpful. It gives readers an idea of whether teams have played strong or weak opposition, and I've seen it for round-robins in other sports. It makes no difference whether or not it's home and away or not, it is still helpful. I'll have a go if I find time. Adpete (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

More information Pos, Player ...

Pos	Player	Pld	W	D	L	Pts
1	Australia	8	7	0	1	14		—	0	2	2	2	2	2		2	2
2	India	8	6	1	1	13		2	—	0	1	2		2	2	2	2
3	England	9	6	0	3	12		0	2	—	2	0	0	2	2	2	2
4	New Zealand	9	5	1	3	11		0	1	0	—	2	2	2	2	2	2
5	Pakistan	8	4	1	3	9		0	0	2	0	—	1		2	0	2
6	Sri Lanka	8	3	2	3	8		0		2	0	1	—	1	0	2	2
7	Bangladesh	8	3	1	4	7		0	0	0	0		1	—	2	2	2
8	South Africa	8	2	1	5	5			0	0	0	0	2	0	—	1	2
9	West Indies	8	1	1	6	3		0	0	0	0	2	0	0	1	—
10	Afghanistan	8	0	0	8	0		0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		—

Close

^^ Here we go. In fact if I can NRR in, it could replace the main table. Adpete (talk) 11:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That would need the cricket specific columns merged into the WDL module (or possibly the cross-tab merged the other way) Spike 'em (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty of updating the table with the relevant templates {{cr}} and {{cricon}}. ${\displaystyle \color {blue}\chi }$_chi (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I updated results through July 3. 70.131.48.56 (talk) 22:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Who is the highest wicket taker in in worldcup 2019 ? Mrtiwary01 (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It is listed in the article. Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

On what basis are the sections ordered? After "Tournament summary" section, there is "Warm-up matches" and then again a "Group stage" section which describes the format of the tournament. Totally illogical. 2402:3A80:CD2:EE03:5463:85B1:1A81:52B8 (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, as I say below, the "Tournament summary - group stage" section should be removed. What is there is detail, not summary, and it belongs in 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage. Adpete (talk) 04:39, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

So I have slowly being working on the summary for the tournament as we are having this tournament. So my question is do you want to have a tournament summary for this page for people who doesn't want to look through every scorecard. HawkAussie (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Prose trumps stats any day of the week, so yes. The section might get quite long if every match is mentioned though, so may be better having a short summary on this page and a fuller recap on the group stage article. Spike 'em (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I did thought about that and my initial thought was to do it in one whole chunk. But that would feel super long so I am going to split up so that it would be week by week. Of course their is certain matches which are one-sided that don't detail while others might need some detail. For example I think the paragraph between Sri Lanka and Afghanistan might be a too long but we sure see as the tournament progress. HawkAussie (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

My initial thought was to move it to the group-stage page if it gets too big, with having the summary on the main page of when each team is knocked out or progresses. However, it's a thankless task in trying to write a decent summary, so I'm happy to leave it. Great work in trying to summarise it! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a bit of SPAG in the summary, but one question: how are the weeks defined? Week 1 runs from Thursday 30 June to Tuesday 4th June and Week 2 from Wednesday to Tuesday. Is there a reason week 1 is only 6 days long? Spike 'em (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

@Spike 'em: I thought the inital match was on the Wednesday not Thursday, so that is why I have gone from Wednesday to Tuesday. So probably adjust the summary to go from Thursday to Wednesday instead of what it currently is. HawkAussie (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The first match was Thursday 30th June. Spike 'em (talk) 07:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh MD-Razu Khan (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

What about Bangladesh? Spike 'em (talk) 07:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Bangladesh can't place in Qualification table!!!!!! Padmanabha Dhala (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The "Group stage" weekly summaries are very arbitrary - some matches are mentioned, other are not. Instead, all verbal game summaries should be moved to 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage. Once the group stage is complete, this could be replace by a 1-2 paragraph summary of the entire group stage (Australia did well, SAF did unexpectedly poorly, etc). Adpete (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I've moved the talk of boycotting the India-Pakistan match to a better place. I will delete "Tournament Summary" section later, unless someone can offer a good reason for it being here instead of 2019 Cricket World Cup group stage. Adpete (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Look up this page, there is already a discussion about this section. Spike 'em (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "Prose trumps stats any day of the week", but that doesn't answer the question of whether it belongs in this article. I would argue that 45 pieces of prose is inappropriate for this article. In any case, the summary should be in the "Group Stage" section, rather than having a separate "Tournament Summary" section before the article even gets to explaining how the Group Stage works. Adpete (talk) 07:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

We all need to be aware of WP:SUMMARY. It simply wouldn't be appropriate to write accounts of all 45 group matches in this article, so we need to summarise, and even in the group stage article, there's no need to go into too much detail. – PeeJay 17:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok look I understand what people are trying to say and I have thought about how to try and summarize each match as it goes on. Sometimes it easy to summarize, while others you need the detail from that particular match. The main reason I wanted to do this was to have the chance of possibly having at least some details instead of just WP:NOTSTATS like most of the tournaments that we have created on here. I will admit that maybe it's slightly too long but that be shrunk after the tournament if need be. But when you get to a stage where it's too short of a summary and not have enough prose. That is the question. HawkAussie (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we at least agree to move the "Tournament Summary / Group Stage" subsection , to inside the "Group Stage" section? It makes no sense to have it before the warmup tournaments, and the description of the Group Stage; especially when it is so long and detailed. Adpete (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@Adpete: I understand where you are coming from, but instead maybe move the warm up section to above the opening cermony is where I put it. HawkAussie (talk) 09:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Would it not be a good idea to move the "Warm-up matches" section to a separate article? They're not part of the tournament whatsoever. It would be like including the warm-up friendlies played in May/June last year in the 2018 FIFA World Cup article. That would at least solve the issue of where to put the tournament summary. – PeeJay 11:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

103.118.79.106 (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Broadcast Partner in Bangladesh Maasranga Television

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Isn't it still possible for Sri Lanka to climb to 4th place if the following unlikely combination of results all occur?

Sri Lanka have 2 more big wins, improving their RR above England, and their points to 10.

England lose to NZ, staying at 10.

Bangladesh lose to Australia, and then beat Pakistan. This leaves both Bangladesh and Pakistan on 9 points.

(There are actually other less likely combinations involving ties or rained off games to let Sri Lanka through.)

I haven't worked out how to edit the table to say Sri Lanka are not (yet) eliminated. It says they are already eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holland jon (talk • contribs) 09:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

No : they can't equal England's number of wins, which is the secondary decider, so NRR will not be used to separate them. Spike 'em (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Check the second line of this to confirm : How England's win affects Bangladesh and Pakistan Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, a win and a loss outweighs 2 washed-out games. That has got to be one of the silliest tie break rules I have ever seen. But still, sensible rules and Cricket world cups do not always go together! Adpete (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

The textbox under the picture of Joe Root says he got the first century of the tournament against Sri Lanka which contradicts the prose (and more importantly reality) which says it was against Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.169.10 (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone got any photos that they took from the 2019 Cricket World Cup that could possibly be added to the article. HawkAussie (talk) 01:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is it mentioned in the lead? It is misleading and can have people thinking that Australia won the 2019 edition and are the defending champions. You can add it after the tournament ends as "Australia entered the tournament as the defending champions and finished runners-up/semifinalists/defended their title." 117.213.163.106 (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree, especially since there is no mention of the results of *this* tournament. Adpete (talk) 05:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Results of this tournament? Maybe because the tournament is not over yet? lol --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

When I wrote that, all round robin matches had been played and the semi-finalists had been decided, and those are results which could have been in the lead. Certainly more relevant than results from 4 years ago. Adpete (talk) 23:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The identities of all four semi-finalists is not necessarily relevant to the lead. The two finalists, sure, and Australia because they were defending champions, but I fail to see why we need to mention India. – PeeJay 01:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I very much disagree. The lead should summarise the article (see WP:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic."), and who made the semi-finals is a major part of the article. The lead is full of fluff which is far less relevant, e.g. the year hosting rights were awarded, what other years England has hosted the World Cup, the fact that NZ were runners-up in 2015, or how many teams played in the 2015 edition. I can name the semi-finalists of most previous World Cups, because the semi-finalists are important. I suspect no one here (and very few cricket fans) know or care what year any previous World Cup hosting rights were awarded, and few would remember how many participants each one had. Adpete (talk) 07:04, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to 2019 Cricket World Cup has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change spelling error 'cruse' to 'cruise' in Semi-Finals section. the English would cruse home to a eight wicket victory Beaker511 (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done MadGuy7023 (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer: Ianblair23 (talk · contribs) 11:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi HawkAussie, please see my comments below:

• Lead

• with both teams scoring 241 add runs

• Qualification

• Ireland also missed the competition for the first time since 2003 link 2003 Cricket World Cup

• Venues

• All of the venues used are in England except for Sophia Gardens, which is in Wales add this ref
• Refs are required for the capacity figures
• Capacity of The Oval is 25,500 according to

• Match officials

• Swap David Boon and Chris Broad to correctly list alphabetically

• Warm-up matches

• These matches did not have One Day International (ODI) status include that they did not List A status either and add this ref

• Opening ceremony

• Jaya Ahsan, Damayanthi Dharsha, Chris Hughes, Sean Fitzpatrick and Pat Cash attending the opening ceremony is not supported by the ref
• Add that prior to the ceremony a reception was held at Buckingham Palace where the Queen and Prince Harry welcomed the ten captains.

• Group stage

• The top four teams from the group stage progressed to the knockout stage. If teams were tied on points, then the number of wins and then the net run rate was used to separate them. add ref
• A similar format was previously used in the 1992 Cricket World Cup, though that tournament featured nine teams instead of ten. add this ref

• Week 1

• the West Indies bowled out Pakistan for just 105 add the lowest completed innings score of the tournament (ref)
• At the Oval, in the fifth match of the group stage → The Oval
• as South Africa fell short by 21 runs technically South Africa fell short [of their target] by 22 runs but they lost by 21 runs.
• The following day saw Pakistan cause an upset over one of the tournament favourites, as they beat England by 14 runs at Trent Bridge. This was despite Joe Root (107) and Jos Buttler (103) both scoring centuries in the chase, as they became the first and second batsmen to score hundreds at the tournaments. add that England became the first team in World Cup history to lose despite having two century-makers. also add this ref which explicitly lists Root and Buttler as the first two to score a century in this World Cup.
• Sri Lanka got off to a good start in their game against Afghanistan in Cardiff, reaching 144/1 in the 21st over. This was before three wickets in five balls from Mohammad Nabi provided the catalyst for a collapse that saw Sri Lanka bowled out for 201. Kusal Perera top-scored for Sri Lanka with 78, while Nabi took another wicket to finish with four for the innings. Rain reduced Afghanistan's innings to 41 overs, but by the 14th over, they had already fallen to 57/5. A partnership of 64 from Najibullah Zadran (who top-scored with 43) and Gulbadin Naib steadied the innings for Afghanistan, but it was not enough, with Nuwan Pradeep taking two quick wickets as Afghanistan fell 34 runs short of their revised target. At five sentences long, this is longest summary for any match in the group stage. Suggest trimming this one back.
• the Black Caps went from 160/2 to 191/5 chasing 244 New Zealand's target was 245

• Week 2

• with Australia having an early batting collapse to fall to 38/4 early in their innings against the West Indies early is mentioned twice, suggest removing the first
• In Taunton, a five-wicket haul from Kiwi bowler James Neesham add it was his maiden ODI five-wicket haul
• In the run chase, Australia were behind the required run rate for much of their innings, despite half-centuries from David Warner, Steve Smith and Alex Carey, and were bowled out for 316, Bhuvneshwar Kumar and Jasprit Bumrah taking three wickets each. Split this long sentence.

• Week 3

• after going off after the eighth over → after leaving the field in the eighth over
• This was thanks to a century from Bangladeshi all-rounder Shakib Al Hasan, who scored 124 from 99 balls as they chased down the target of 322. In the West Indies' innings, Shai Hope top-scored with 96 runs from 121 balls as he and Evin Lewis (70) got the West Indies to 321/8 from their 50 overs. Reverse these sentences as the West Indies batted first and also add that this was Bangladesh's highest successful run chase in ODIs and that this was the second highest successful run chase in World Cup history
• leading the hosts to a total of 397/6, the highest total of the tournament so far remove 'so far' as it ended up being the highest
• Hashmatullah Shahidi managed 76 in response for Afghanistan, but they were always behind the required rate and fell 150 runs short, managing 247 from their 50 overs. Afghanistan fell 151 runs short of their target for victory and move ref 68 to the end of this sentence.

• Week 4

• Week four saw David Warner score 166, aided by a score of 89 from Usman Khawaja in Nottingham. Australia's total of 381/5 proved out of reach for Bangladesh, despite Mahmudullah and Mushfiqur Rahim getting them within 48 runs of the target. Expand on this to included that Warner's 166 was the highest individual innings of the tournament ; that Bangladesh's 333/8 was their new highest total in ODIs surpassing the record they set against South Africa 18 days earlier; and that the 714 runs scored is the highest match aggregate in a World Cup match.
• Stokes, who was left stranded on 82* replace asterisk with 'not out'
• England fell 20 short all out 21 runs short
• saw Afghanistan fall 11 runs short 12 runs short
• within five runs of the target six runs
• caught by Trent Boult at long on link Fielding (cricket)#Fielding position names and locations
• as New Zealand won by only five runs remove 'only'

• Week 5

• The fifth week of the tournament started with India demolishing 'demolishing' is peacock term
• out for only 143 remove 'only'
• Starc became the first player to get three five-wicket hauls at a World Cup → Starc became the first player to take three five-wicket hauls at the World Cup and link to List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls
• before a century partnership between Khawaja and Carey Usman Khawaja and Alex Carey
• New Zealand managed just 157 remove 'just'
• add that Trent Boult took the second hat-trick of this World Cup
• saw Afghanistan set 228 against Pakistan 227
• Pakistan home to a three-wicket victory with only two balls to spare remove 'only'

• Week 6

• Despite Bangladesh losing the match, Shakib Al Hasan finished his tournament with 606 runs, surpassing Sachin Tendulkar's record for the most runs in the group stage of a World Cup. Shakib's record would very soon be surpassed by Rohit Sharma and David Warner by the end of the group stage, with former top-scoring in the group stage with 647 runs Ref 79 needs to move to end of the first sentence and this ref needs to be added to end of the second sentence.
• India cruised to a seven-wicket victory over Sri Lanka off the back of centuries from K. L. Rahul and Rohit Sharma as they chased down a target of 265 runs with seven wickets to spare. 'seven wickets to spare' is redundant
• Add that Rohit Sharma became the fist batsman to score five centuries in a world cup and equalled Tendulkar's record of six overall.
• Angelo Mathews scored his third ODI century for Sri Lanka, all of which had come against India. this is not supported by ref 91. But this ref does
• India finished top first or top of the table
• the victory by only 10 runs redundant

• Fixtures

• All times are in British Summer Time (UTC+01:00) no times are listed

• Knockout stage

• If any match ended in a tie, a Super Over would be used to determine the winner; each team would select three batsmen and a bowler, with the full team available to field. There would be no penalty for the loss of a wicket, but the loss of two wickets would end the Super Over. If the scores in the Super Over were also tied, the winner would be determined by the two teams' overall boundary count, including both the match itself and the Super Over this is not supported by ref 95.

• Semi-finals

• 85 off just 65 balls remove 'just'
• Add the Mitchell Starc took his 27th wicket, the most in a single world cup.
• Add that Rohit Sharma also finished as the tournament's top run-scorer overall with 648 runs.

• Final

• After two dot balls link Glossary of cricket terms#D
• despite the Laws of Cricket Laws of Cricket should be in italics
• Stokes left unbeaten with 84* remove asterisk

• Notes

• Note B requires a reference

• References

• Ref 1 – (ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 2019 shatters audience records) add date = 12 July 2019
• Ref 4 – (Cricket World Cup 2019 to stay at only 10 teams) add author = Stephan Shemilt
• Ref 5 – (Afghanistan and Ireland receive opportunity to qualify for the ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 with Full Members) link is now at: https://www.icc-cricket.com/news/180940 and add date = 28 January 2015
• Ref 6 – (Sri Lanka qualify for ICC Cricket World Cup 2019) replace with a cite web template and add date = 19 September 2017
• Ref 7 – (ICC's Richardson wants more teams in World T20) link is now at: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/26169975/icc-dave-richardson-wants-expand-world-t20-first-round-18-teams-super-12-phase and correct date to 4 April 2016
• Ref 8 – (West Indies reach 2019 Cricket World Cup as Scotland are denied by rain in Qualifier) add date = 21 March 2018
• Ref 9 – (Afghanistan qualify for CWC19) add date = 23 March 2018
• Ref 11 – (Ireland miss out on World Cup for the first time since 2003) add agency = PA Media
• Ref 13 – (Cricket World Cup: The Final 10) add date = 23 March 2018
• Ref 16 – (ECB considering using Olympic Stadium to host 2019 Cricket World Cup games) remove 'Exclusive by'
• Ref 17 – (London Olympic Stadium gets ICC approval) link is now at: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/18536389/london-olympic-stadium-gets-approval-2019-world-cup and add author = Tim Wigmore
• Ref 19 – (The many shapes of England’s cricket stadiums) add author = Shadab Nazmi
• Ref 22 – (Uncapped Blundell named in New Zealand World Cup squad, Sodhi preferred to Astle) add date = 2 April 2019
• Ref 24 – (Top 10 Oldest Players in ICC Cricket World Cup 2019) add author = Vipul B
• Ref 25 – (Match officials for ICC Men's Cricket World Cup 2019 announced) add date = 26 April 2019
• Ref 26 – (Umpire Ian Gould to retire after World Cup) link is now at: https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/_/id/26608204/umpire-ian-gould-retire-world-cup and add date = 26 April 2019
• Ref 30 – (A royal party opens Cricket World Cup on the Mall ahead of today's opening match) add date = 30 May 2019
• Ref 34 – (ICC Cricket World Cup 2019 Opening Ceremony Highlights: Team captains meet the Queen as opening party concludes- Firstcricket News, Firstpost) add date = 29 May 2019
• Ref 37 – (Will violence prevent India vs. Pakistan World Cup showdown?) add date = 26 February 2019
• Ref 39 – (ICC warns BCCI: India likely to lose proposal to ban Pakistan from World Cup) add author Jepher Nickels
• Ref 40 – (ICC to BCCI: Severing cricket ties with countries not our domain) add date = 3 March 2019
• Ref 41 – (International Cricket Council Turns Down Indian Board's Request On Terrorism: Report) add author Santosh Rao
• Ref 43 – (West Indies annihilate Pakistan in brutal World Cup opener) add agency = AAP
• Ref 48 – (Cricket World Cup 2019 - Pakistan stun England) add agency = AFP
• Ref 53 – (Pakistan and Sri Lanka share the points as rain leads to World Cup washout) add agency = AP
• Ref 64 – (Proteas down Afghanistan for first victory) correct spelling of Supersport
• Ref 66 – (Superb Kuldeep Yadav puts Pakistan in a spin to turn match India's way) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 67 – (World Cup 2019: Shakib Al Hasan, Liton Das power Bangladesh past West Indies in record chase) added Scroll.in and agency = AFP
• Ref 70 – (David Warner hits century as Australia return to table top with win over Bangladesh) The Telegraph should be in italics
• Ref 71 – (England vs Sri Lanka: Malinga Inspires Lanka to 20-run Win at Headingley) add News18
• Ref 73 – (NZ defeat West Indies in absolutely thrilling Cup contest) add news.com.au and agency = AP
• Ref 75 – (Shakib al Hasan matches Yuvraj Singh's World Cup record for best all-round performance) add Indian Express
• Ref 76 – (Bangladesh keep hopes alive as Shakib Al Hasan sinks Afghanistan) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 78 – (World Cup 2019: Pakistan keep semi-final hopes alive after handing New Zealand 1st defeat) India Today should be in italics
• Ref 80 – (Virat Kohli and Mohammed Shami lead India's demolition of West Indies) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 81 – (Cricket World Cup: Sri Lanka stung by South Africa after bees stop play) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 83 – (Pakistan's Imad Wasim holds nerve to see off Afghanistan in thriller) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 85 – (Avishka Fernando hits high notes and Sri Lanka hold nerve against West Indies) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 86 – (Shakib Al Hasan first to 500 runs and 10 wickets in single World Cup) remove 'Team Sportstar' as the author and remove The Hindu
• Ref 87 – (India qualify for Cricket World Cup semi-finals after Rohit Sharma's ton against Bangladesh) The Telegraph should be in italics
• Ref 88 – (England v New Zealand: Hosts reach World Cup semi-finals) BBC Sport should be in italics
• Ref 89 – (Afghanistan and Ikram give West Indies fright but still end up winless) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 90 – (Pakistan thrash Tigers) The Daily Star should be in italics
• Ref 91 – (India pile tons on Sri Lanka and end up leapfrogging Australia) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 97 – (Cricket World Cup: Australia beaten by South Africa in Manchester) add Amy Lofthouse as the author and 6 July 2019 as the date
• Ref 98 – (India v New Zealand semi-final to resume on Wednesday after rain delay) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 101 – (England thrash Australia to reach their fourth Cricket World Cup final) The Guardian should be in italics
• Ref 107 – title needs correcting, date and newspaper to be added
• Ref 112 – (Live from Cricket World Cup: Sunset+Vine execs discuss storytelling and adding production 'gloss') add date = 10 July 2019
• Ref 114 – (Cricket World Cup 2019: Prime TV will air the Black Caps in Lord's final) add date = 11 July 2019
• Ref 115 – (Hotstar sets global streaming record during India-New Zealand semi-final) add author = Ed Dixon and date = 17 July 2019
• Ref 117 – (Willow TV to Broadcast Cricket World cup 2019 Live in USA) link is dead

• Images

• All images need alt text.
• Add this ref to the caption for the Root image.
• For Hasan's image caption Shakib Al Hasan (pictured in 2009) became the only cricketer in the World Cup history with 600 runs and 10 wickets. specify that this was in a single World Cup. But to a wider point, the image is included in the Week 5 paragraph which is where he broke 500 runs. So reader as I went down it mentions 600 which I thought was an error. It is not until you reach the Week 6 paragraph that you find that he actually scored 600 runs. So I suggest that the caption is changed to list 500 runs or move it down to the Week 6 paragraph.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2019 Cricket World Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

@Ianblair23: Right I have gone through and done the modifications as you suggested but I have left out some of those thoughts.

• The Mitchell Starc and Rohit Sharma leading takers have been moved into the statistics to have some prose for that section as I felt like that bit was lacking.
• Putting the fact that James Neesham getting his maiden five wicket haul doesn't quite fit into a summary sort of style.
• Trent Boult took the second hat-trick of this World Cup - Again we are trying to summarise a tournament not needing to expand it.
• I might have a missed a couple of things while going through the big list but when their is over 30 kilobytes of prose, you can sometimes miss stuff out. HawkAussie (talk) 03:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi HawkAussie, thanks for making these changes. Please see my review below:

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   All claims are supported by an appropriate reference with no original research, plagiarism or copyright issues.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Coverage is excellent, includes all sections that is found on international sporting tournaments articles.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article complies with NPOV including all match summaries.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The edit history is fairly stable now that the tournament is completed.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are appropriately licenced, have suitable captions and alt text.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Excellent work on this article HawkAussie. This article has promoted to Good article status. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)