Talk:Mustafizur Rahman/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 16:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am a WikiCup participant, as is the nominator.

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "he put an impressive performance" impressive feels like weasel word, it should either be a quote or the description of the game be given to avoid neutrality issues.

   YDone. In the references, there is no description on his performance. So to make it less important, I just changed it to an issue regarding his national selection. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

2. That paragraph should also probably have a citation.

   YDone. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

3. The article isn't clear to someone unfamiliar with cricket, largely because of the use of jargon. What's a "bagful of wickets"? "he bumped with Indian batsman" what does bumped mean? While some are wikilinked, I think a number of them could be better described in prose so that readers don't have to constantly click around to understand a biography.

   YDone. Reworded jargon and described unfamiliar glossaries relating cricket. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

4. Records and milestones should probably be written in prose per WP:USEPROSE

   YDone, although articles like Virat Kohli do not follow this policy. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

5. I feel like the article isn't "reasonably well written". The prose feels stillted, and I feel like it doesn't fully cover a number of aspects it mentions.

   Wugapodes can you show me some examples? Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

   Sure! The first is the "Early life" section which is a series of similarly structured declarative sentences. It reads more like a list of things than it does a biographical story. I also feel like the "Playing Style" and "Records and Milestones" adequately cover the topic. Perhaps they could be included in another section? They just feel incredibly short which makes me feel like there may be things not included. Wugapodes (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

6. "This established him as an opening bowler. Generally, he is very consistent with his line and length." The citation given does not seem to make any mention of this.

   YDone. Removed his bowling position as it is not mentioned specifically in any site, though it can be visualized in the bowling scorecards. Here is a example - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/817209.html. For his line and length, I put a suitable site. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Results

Second opinion I feel like this article needs a lot of work before I'm willing to promote, particularly in regards to criteria one and three. I'm going to ask for a second opinion on whether to hold or not list, but in the mean time, feel free to start addressing the points I raised above. Wugapodes (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I corrected most of the errors picked up by the first reviewer. The on field umpire is asking for a third umpire review (Relating to cricket!). Anyways, more points from the second reviewer on ways to pass GA will be appreciable. I will try copyediting in the interim. Thanks Wugapodes. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

On a second read-through, I actually think the article is better than I first gave it credit for. I'm going to keep the second opinion up for a few days just to see if I can get some outside input, but if you resolve the last comment and no one has offered one by the 26th, I'll pass it without the second opinion. Wugapodes (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I did the best I could. Created a new section. If you have other queries, please feel free to unveil. Ikhtiar H (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Listed I am convinced the article meets the GA criteria, though I think a good deal of work can and should still be done to get it up to A-class or FA level. I would strongly recommend a peer review to improve the flow of prose and just as a general copy edit to get more eyes on it than just mine. Still, a quality contribution, and I hope you keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thank you so much! It was in a very bad state a few days back, almost stub. This guy became famous following his international career less than a year ago. Hopefully, he will continue his career from his ongoing career soon. And along with that, this page will gradually increase as well. This is indeed an example of a short article GA. Ikhtiar H (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)