Talk:Cricket (sport)

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Glossary [?]
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition An outdoor team sport played with a bat and ball; highly popular in England and Commonwealth countries. [d] [e]

added subpage template

Hi John, good work here, though we Americans have a lot to learn on this one! I added the subpages template to your article for you. You are allowed to do this too, so if you ever need any help, just let me know and I'll walk you through it. Make sure and take a look at the metadata page and see if everything looks right to you. You can update it as the status changes with this article (ie once you add some wikilinks, ready for approval, etc.) --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:51, 21 September 2007 (CDT)

Yes, looking good, John. I do think something about runs and what they are needs to be added to the first elementary exposition of the game. I didn't understand that first section until I read the "runs" section. --Larry Sanger 09:01, 24 September 2007 (CDT)

Mention on BBC blog

BBC journalist Rory Cellan-Jones admits he has only a modest knowledge of cricket, but it might be useful to know that as a layperson he finds the Wikipedia version of this article easier to read. This is another article identifying CZ's number of articles as a problem. John Stephenson 02:48, 1 April 2008 (CDT)


Seems to me to duplicate the main text too much. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem. Do you think the intro should be very short, say, two sentences? Or should it be a full "lead" which summarises all the main points of the text? I think after all I'm inclined with a wide subject like this to go for the short option. John Leach (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Many regard cricket as utterly mystifying, so best to aim at a neat summary. Ro Thorpe (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, that was easier said than done. Actually I was impressed by your conciseness. I may even have made it longer. Ro Thorpe (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It's much better, thanks. I certainly should have referred to running at the outset. Still a lot of work to do on this article, I'm afraid. John Leach (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure we can make it into somwething good. A patient innings is required... Ro Thorpe (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)