Talk:Kapil Dev as Indian national cricket coach

Merger suggestion

I think this is a good article, but it should be a section within the Kapil Dev biographical piece rather than a separate piece. Any encyclopedia user looking for this information is very unlikely to search under this title: they would look under Kapil Dev, or under Indian national cricket team. Johnlp 22:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

No they wouldn't but, there is a summary of the coaching, and a link to this page, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I created the page because the size of the Kapil Dev Wiki page was getting large. As Blnguyen points out, there is a summary of his coaching credentials in the main page along with a link to this page. Kalyan 14:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, all right. I see why you did it, but I just think it's a bit odd to have a slice of someone's life story in a separate article. But then I don't have a problem with long articles if they're good articles full of interesting information, which the Kapil Dev one is. Johnlp 11:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

GA comment

Before another editor reviews this, make sure that all inline citations are moved to after the punctuation with no spaces in between. --Nehrams2020 00:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Passed

I'm very pleased with this article's coverage of Kapil Dev's time as coach, plentiful citations, and quality of prose. After adding some wikilinks to help our non-cricket obsessed readers, I have only three issues. Two involve the lead:

• it is much too long with unneeded details for a summary and some sort of context should be provided about who Kapil Dev was before and, hence, why anyone would want to make him coach.

added context of his achievements prior to coaching stint. --Kalyan 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Also, there are no citations in the lead. I know the facts stated appear later cited in the article, but I think they should be cited in the lead as well. I'm a bit confused on this point since I've seen GA articles with uncited leads and without...let's cite them unless someone has some consensus to tell me about.

I think citations is not necessary for lead section articles if statements made here can be validated in the main article. If there is any such statement, you need validation - buzz me and i shall add the same. --Kalyan 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Finally, the table in the Legacy section needs a citation. That's all...

Done. Added. --Kalyan 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• maybe add a few more wikilinks to cricket terms.

need help from you in finding terms that you require wikilinks for. i had a go at the article on the same. --Kalyan 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

--Meowist 23:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yo yo...this aritcle's been on hold for 5 days. Only two more days left and I have to fail it, I think. --Meowist 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Made it in the nick of time, i suppose. please let me know if all is well with the addressal of the comments. --Kalyan 06:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'm pleased with the changes made to the article and am passing it --Meowist 17:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Kapil Dev as Indian national cricket coach/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article is very good, currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards,--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

The prose is good, an 8/10.

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

Article doesnt say what Kapil did for strategy or player selection. This is missing. It only lists the final result of the team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinator (talk • contribs) 01:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Kapil Dev as Indian national cricket coach

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. AfD is not within the GAR purview. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

GA from 2007, reassessed in 2009. The article has some unsourced sentences and prose issues. There is 1 citation needed tag. Also, is this actually notable enough for a separate article? I think this could be easily merged with Kapil Dev. Spinixster (chat!) 08:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• De-list honestly, I don't think this article should exist as a stand-alone article anyway (he coached for 33 matches, which is way less than hundreds of other national team coaches), but in terms of the GA criteria, it doesn't look to meet them. Quite a few places need sourcing, and the article is just a re-telling of a few series, rather than being focused on Dev's role in these series i.e. what did he do that was different and contributed to the team's success/failures? And the "Match Fixing Allegation and Resignation" is not written in formal tone, as it has lots of WP:WEASEL words, so fails GA criteria 1b and 4, as it has clear opinions rather than fact on the issues at hand. Other less major issues include the fact the article constantly refers to him as Kapil rather than Dev (in violation of WP:SURNAME), has links to general articles like Australia national cricket team and One Day International rather than specific links to the series in question e.g. New Zealand cricket team in India in 1999–2000. All in all, fails GA criteria 1a, 1b and 4, so would be a straight fail if nominated for GA today. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.