Talk:Cricket (sport): Difference between revisions
imported>Peter Jackson (→Intro: new section) |
imported>John Leach (→Intro: short or long?) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
== Intro == | == Intro == | ||
Seems to me to duplicate the main text too much. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:John Leach|John Leach]] ([[User talk:John Leach|talk]]) 14:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:23, 23 January 2016
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)
Intro
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)