Talk:Sachin Tendulkar/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is substantially unchanged since the previous GAN was quick-failed in October this year. The nominating editor has only made 5 edits to the article. Therefore this is another fail. In addition to the comments made by Harrias at the previous GAN, here are a few more points to consider. Please look at these and at the GA criteria before nominating this again. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

• We don't actually need citations in the lead as the information should be in the main body and cited there. And we certainly don't need a long list of citations like we have where there are three and four references after a fact.
• "widely acknowledged as the greatest batsman of the modern generation, popularly holds the title "God of Cricket" among his fans [2] He is also acknowledged as the greatest cricketer of all time.": I'm sorry, what? One of the greatest modern batsmen, certainly, but Lara and Ponting would be up there by most criteria. Even Dravid. Or Kallis. But "the greatest cricketer of all time"? That is certainly POV and would be challenged by most respected commentators in the cricket world.
• "In 2002, Wisden Cricketers' Almanack ranked him the second greatest Test batsman of all time, behind Don Bradman, and the second greatest ODI batsman of all time, behind Viv Richards.": Where does Wisden say this? The reference looks very, very dubious, and such a claim should be cited directly to Wisden.
• Rather than go through his career, one quarter of the lead is a list of fairly un-noteworthy awards. This is not necessary.
• I would recommend much more is made of his early career in the lead, and his captaincy.
• The article is not balanced. The early life section is too long, but then the first ten years of his international career are covered in five or six paragraphs. The vast majority of the article covers his career in the last five or six years. This must be addressed for this to be anywhere near GA level.
• Although his maiden Test hundred gets one sentence, and his centuries in Australia in 91-92, which were widely acclaimed as insanely brilliant, get two sentences, including a pointless quote from Merv Hughes, his IPL career gets its own section.
• We have some very, very short sections later on.
• Why no style and technique section?
• Coverage of his domestic career is paltry.
• We have vast swathes of un-cited text, particularly in the "Rise through the ranks" section. There look to be many un-cited facts throughout. This should be closely looked at.
• The external links tool reveals a few dead-links (also mentioned in the previous GAN)
• The Dablinks tool reveals a strange redirect back to the page. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is just a sampling. From the formal, GA criteria viewpoint, here is the full review.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Various problems. Just two examples, but there are many others: "Ajit told Achrekar that he was feeling self-conscious due to the coach observing him, and wasn't displaying his natural game" (weak prose, use of contractions in contravention of MoS), "Tendulkar further enhanced his reputation as a future great during the 1991–1992 tour of Australia held before the 1992 Cricket World Cup, that included an unbeaten 148 in the third Test Sydney and 114 on a fast, bouncing pitch in the final Test at Perth against a world-class pace attack comprising Merv Hughes, Bruce Reid and Craig McDermott." (Long sentence, peacock terms, POV issues). I have NOT checked for copyvio issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Most sources look OK, but one or two require close checking. Some un-cited sections suggest OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Balance is all wrong. His early career is barely covered, his final few years are covered in far too much detail. No style and technique section. See above for further comments.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   POV issues along the line of "he was great" and "he was the best", or "future great". This should be written in a neutral way. It is not at the moment.

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):

   I have not checked the images properly, but a few which come from Flickr, such as the one of his family, look dubious. Did the Flickr author really take them all? This should be looked at more carefully.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article has a long way to go. To be brutal, Tendulkar deserves much, much better.

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) 20:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)