Talk:Shakib Al Hasan/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 09:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

As soon as I started reading this, I decided that it was going to fail GACR#1 because it is not at all well written and the lead is frankly appalling. No one reading an introduction is interested in media rankings proclaiming this, that and the other. Such claims breach WP:IINFO. The final sentence of the opening paragraph includes WP:POV expressions like aggressive batting, controlled bowling and athletic fielding. The second paragraph is a mass of statistical data that has no place in the lead and, given WP:NOTSTATS, perhaps not even in the article. It reads like a fanzine – that breaches WP:FANCRUFT and is why I've posted the fanpov banner.

The records and achievements section should be removed as it is WP:IINFO. Any significant records held by Shakib should be merged into the narrative of his career. I don't know if the sources used are all reliable but every one of the 252 references is from an online source. While I know that ESPNcricinfo and some of the newspaper sites can be considered reliable, others including one paywalled site must be open to question. There are plenty of reputable cricket book sources available, such as the Wisden Almanac, and I have to ask why some of these have not been consulted?

On the plus side, the images are very good and are WP editors' own work so it would easily pass GACR#6. The basic structure is okay and, despite reservations about some references, the reflist does meet layout style guidelines. The article is stable (GACR#5).

I've taken the trouble to find another article about a current cricketer that has passed GA. I can't see a Bangladeshi one but Jos Buttler is a current England player and his article is 30 kB compared with Shakib's 39 kB. If you look at Buttler's lead, you will see that it talks about him as a professional by explaining who he is, what he does and who he plays for before mentioning the English record he holds and a bit about his playing style. Then the second paragraph gives a potted summary of his whole career from school cricket to test cricket. That is very good and is just what the reader has a right to expect in terms of an article summary.

I'm imposing WP:GAFAIL on Shakib because the article is a long way from meeting one (GACR#1) of the six good article criteria. If I were to carry out a full review, I predict that it would also fail GACR#4 because of editorial bias and GACR#2b because there are four citation needed tags. I have no opinion on GACR#2c, #2d or #3 without a full review. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)