Talk:James Taylor (cricketer, born 1990)
 | James Taylor (cricketer, born 1990) was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Note to GA reviewers
editJoesayers (talk · contribs) was the editor who nominated this article and put in the effort of expanding it to its current state, but due to other commitments is retiring from Wikipedia. He has asked me to deal with the review in his place and I've agreed to do so. Nev1 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:James Taylor (cricketer, born 1990)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs · count) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
1. Well written? 
Fail: although the prose is reasonable in places, it is of a repititious nature: the first five sentences all begin "Taylor..", as do the first three in the 2009 section. The article has one example of a contraction "Taylor wasn't..", and is simplistic in places, and nonsensical in others.
2. Factually accurate? 
Pass: The article is well written, using a number of different sources, and references are consistently formatted.
3. Broad in coverage? 
Unsure: Excessive detail seems to be given on some of his innings, although given his short career, this is understandable.
4. Neutral point of view? Pass: In general the article manages to maintain a neutral point of view.
5. Article stability? Pass: Though if he starts playing for England regularly, then this could be expected to change.
6. Images?: Pass
Overall Fail: At the moment the article is not up to Good article quality, but I'll place it on hold for a week and see if anyone is willing to work on it. The content is there, but a fair bit of work will be needed to bring the prose up to standard. Harrias talk 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, I'll see what I can do. Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I've given the article a once over, what do you reckon? I've trimmed some of the detail, so it's now about 350 words shorter, and tried to add a bit of variety to the prose. I can remove more, but I am cautious as this isn't my article, I'm just looking after it. I would imagine that in the long run this level of detail is unsustainable; Taylor will no doubt play more for England and as his career continues it would be preferable to adopt a summary style, highlighting peaks and troughs in performance and generalising. But I'm not sure it's a concern just yet. Nev1 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work on the article, but looking through it in more detail, I think there is still too much that needs doing: the language remains poor throughout, and a little dry. I'm going to fail it now, but with some work, and I think a peer review, it isn't too far off being renominated. Harrias talk 17:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Height
editThere are two different heights listed. Which one is correct?
I noticed the differing heights too, the 5'4" figure is apparently from a Sunday Times article which is paywalled, the title of the article "little and large" would suggest it might be biased toward a low figure.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2320938/James-Taylor-I-loved-taste-big-time--Im-ready-more.html gives 5'6" but says: "officially given height of 5ft 6in seems exaggerated by an inch or two", I saw 5'6" elswhere on the net too. Walworth (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on James Taylor (cricketer, born 1990). 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/20110927162807/http://www.leicestershireccc.co.uk/lc/News/2011/Thakor-acknowledges-Taylor-influence to http://www.leicestershireccc.co.uk/lc/News/2011/Thakor-acknowledges-Taylor-influence
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: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 09:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)