Talk:Anil Kumble/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this article is some way off GA status. It seems a lot of good work has been done, but I think much more is required. It may be worth looking at some other cricket GAs or FAs to understand what is required to reach GA status. But with so much work having been done, I think GA is a realistic goal in the near future.

I looked closely at the first sections, and found several prose and referencing issues. "He is currently…": Needs a date, as per

WP:DATED
; i.e. "As of 2012…"

I did not read the rest as closely, but the main issue seems to be broad coverage.

Consequently, I'm afraid I must fail this article. Here is the formal review:

here
for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (
    lists
    )
    :
    The prose needs a lot of work. I have listed several issue above but noticed several more in the remainder of the article. I recommend a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved editor.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
    A few issues with sources not supporting the text, and at least one issue with copyvio/close paraphrasing. This must be checked very carefully before and during a future nomination.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Too much IPL, not enough on the rest of his career. Concerns outlined above. This is my major issue, there is just not enough coverage of his career. Too much is either left out or covered in one sentence; but then, too much on single issues like 10 wicket game, IPL and Test century in comparison to his overall career. He was not a one-trick pony.
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy
    .
    Fair representation without bias:
    One minor issue identified, but this needs checking more closely throughout the article. Nothing obvious on first glance.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )
    :
    No problems
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    I'm afraid there is some way to go, and too much to do in the timespan of a GA review.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed.--Sarastro1 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]