Talk:2012 Delhi Daredevils season

POVs by using quotations

There are way too many quotes used which are clearly sounding to be promoting the subject as such quotes are only used to signify how amazing their work was and "never" to show the darker side. Please remove all such quotes or add that who quoted it + if you are not removing the quotation, then add up that who said it as well as add quotes for their bad performances too. The article isn't balanced at all right now. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 16:32, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have seriously misused {{whom?}}. See this for usage, and it should only be added when the content is not sourced. Please remove all additions of that template. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• I also think you've gone mad with the other templates. Remove them all and put them at the end of the sentence. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• You have clearly misused the templates. Sorry but flooding a whole new article with such templates is not encouraged. If you want I can give you clarifications about all your issues. I have reverted your edits, so please DON'T add them again before discussing. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:31, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

• A short note on your "quotes POV" comment: flop buy, came a cropper on a lively pitch, but it was too late by then, significant difference, Virtually unknown offspinner, one of the biggest tactical goof-ups in IPL history are not "used to signify how amazing their work was." Just the way Laden's article will have more negative side, a team topping the league stage and the group stage will have more positive things. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Delhi Daredevils in 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My first observation is that the subject of the article requires bolding on first reference to it. Here are a number of issues that I thing need to be fixed before this can become a GA:

• "is a part of the"... Should really be something like "who play in the..."  Done
• "it topped the league", A bit slang-y maybe something like "they came top of the league"

• I feel that the current one is better.

• " it failed to win any match", don't you mean "They failed to win any matches"?

• Didn't get you.

• Should say "added players such as...."  Done
• All reference to the club should be as "they" rather than "it" or simply Delhi

• I have taken DD as singular in the whole article. I believe that its a better option as the whole article needs to be consistent.

• Skipper is slang, it should really say captain or club captain

• Its a highly used term in cricket.

• Use US$ for the first reference to the money, then use $ as it's a bit cumbersome to keep using US$ when it's clear it is in American dollars.  Done
• Reference to the money should be in numbers rather than words if the figure is under a million. (ie. $450,000 and $50,000)  Done
• "leaving out.." should be clarified  Done
• finished in third place, not "finished at the third position"  Done
• Just need to say that "they won by..." (and vice versa), no need for extra "it"  Done
• "battle of the heavyweights is WP:POV and should be removed.

• That has been quoted, so I don't think it comes under POV.

• "claiming the most number o wickets", don't think I need to specify what is wrong with that.  Done
• In the Warriors pic, the description should say The Daredevil's playing against.  Done
• Should be a comma before Titans  Done
• In the Reaction section, $ should be delinked and for INR lakh should be linked

•  Done It already done.

• The IPL logo should be removed from being next to the IPL portal.

• This is how the template works. And btw this logo is not copyrighted.

• Is the picture of KP really necessary as it's referring to the previous season?  Done

That being said, the other pics are fine. Just need to fix these issues and I'll have another look. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

As per the Wikicup, I am obliged to say that I am also competing in it too. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 17:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There's still inconsistency with the prices (example: "$50 thousand"). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)  Done

All dne then. A new GA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Delhi Daredevils in 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150514110045/http://stats.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=6680%3Btype%3Dtournament to http://stats.espncricinfo.com/indian-premier-league-2012/engine/records/bowling/most_wickets_career.html?id=6680%3Btype%3Dtournament

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)