Talk:2021 Pakistan Super League/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello CreativeNorth. I will be be GA reviewing this article in the coming days. Please contact me for any problems. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 04:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Section-wise Assessment

I'll be doing a section-wise review here. There will be some corrections needed. Please do help with them @CreativeNorth. Thanks again. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @Kpddg: I’ll try and respond to your comments and resolve any issues over the next few days. CreativeNorth (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead Section

• What does it mean by 'second season to be held entirely in Pakistan'? Please clarify.

Added "after the previous seasons were held elsewhere due to the security situation there" so I think that is fine. YCreativeNorth (talk)

• 'On 11 March 2021, the PCB confirmed that they were aiming to reschedule the remaining fixtures for June 2021.'

Y Done. CreativeNorth (talk)

• 'On 18 March 2021, the PCB proposed the tournament resume on either 2 or 6 June and end on 20 June 2021, with all matches to be held in Karachi.' Sentence needs to be improvised grammatically

Y Changed to “On 18 March 2021, the PCB proposed for the tournament to resume on either 2 or 6 June and end on 20 June 2021, with all matches to be held in Karachi.” I think that’s fine. CreativeNorth (talk)

• 'On 11 April 2021, the PCB announced that....'

Y Fixed. CreativeNorth (talk)

• 'The PCB proposed holding the entire tournament in Abu Dhabi.' Replace with 'to hold' Y Done. CreativeNorth (talk)
• Main problem - This entire section is unsourced. Add sources

 Pending approval @Kpddg: I cited a sentence that is not repeated in the body. As for the rest I think MOS:CITELEAD applies here and all other statements are repeated in the body so I think this is fine. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong because I probably am. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@CreativeNorth: The second para, where info about several reschedules are given, is not much mentioned later. So providing citations for that part will be sufficient. Kpddg ^(talk) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

• 'An extra 10% could also have been allowed in after the group stage' What does it mean by 'could have been'? Was an extra 10% allowed or not?

Y added "but was not when the tournament moved to the UAE." Think that is fine. CreativeNorth (talk)

Squads

• Why have some names been strike-throughed? What does that imply? Please clarify.

 Pending approval @Kpddg: I'm not going to lie my knowledge of tables is not the best. I think I have fixed it but would you mind taking a look. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@CreativeNorth: This is very good. 👍

Venues

• This section is fine

Match Officials

• Why has reference 26 been cited two times here? Remove the first.

Y First reference has been removed.CreativeNorth (talk)

Promotion

• Fine; informative; good references
• Why has Imran Khan been included under artists? He is the Prime Minister....😂

Y Removed. I was probably editing while half asleep lol. CreativeNorth (talk)

Pandemic Impact

• Good

League Stage

• Fine

Fixtures

• Good Section
• Do not need to mention who made his debut in the fixtures. Viewers will know if they click on the scorecard. Writing about the toss/match delayed is fine.

Y Removed now. CreativeNorth (talk)

Summary

• A moderately detailed scorecard is already given. According to me, a week-by-week summary is not needed. This section can be deleted.

@Kpddg: Are you sure here? 2019 Cricket World Cup is quite similar to this article and has both scorecards and a summary which is how I assume it is broad in it's coverage for criteria point 3. What do you think? CreativeNorth (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth: Ok then. I was having the opinion that this section was not needed. Let this be there then. One point of improvement, an image of a prominent performer can be added for each week. Kpddg ^(talk) 02:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Y Not the best looking but images have been added. CreativeNorth (talk)

I earlier said to add image, but after seeing now I felt it was too much. I removed a couple, hope that looks fine. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Playoffs

• Needs lot of improvement
• Content may interest only a particular audience
• Too detailed; just a brief summary will suffice
• The finals is okay, but improve the others

Y OK. I've reduced the size of the summary's for the Qualfier, Elim 1 and 2. That should be fine. CreativeNorth (talk)

Ok, fine Kpddg ^(talk)

Awards & Statistics

• Good
• I made a couple of minor improvements here

On Hold for Improvements

Several improvements need to be made. The nominator CreativeNorth has not yet responded. So I will place this article  On hold for 1 week. Further decision will be made after making these improvements. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice work CreativeNorth. I reviewed the article once again, and everything looked fine. There's just this one improvement in the lead section left, which has been mentioned. Can promote to GA status once that is worked upon. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg: I think that is everything. I have added sources to the unsourced bits in the lead and all the remaining statements in the second paragraph are sourced in the pandemic section. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Right CreativeNorth. Missed that earlier....my apologies. Will pass the article. Thank you for your efforts. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem @Kpddg:. Thanks for all your help here, I appreciate it. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Final Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass:
· · ·

This article is  Passed