Talk:Jasprit Bumrah

REquest for protected

Multiple vandalism attempts from unregistered users. Request to move the page to semi protected status. --ShockWave97 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Potential plagiarism

The paragraph beginning "He grabbed the eyeballs ... " seems to have been taken word for word from "Cricket Today - Weekly 2017: November 24, 2017". See here (p17).--Megaton Sheriff (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The section "He started his bowling career by playing for the Gujarat under-19 team. He made his Indian Premier League debut with the Mumbai Indians in 2013. He showed some promise in his bowling with some pace and swing, he has impressed many in the IPL with his bowling figures, in his debut match of IPL 2013 he took 3 wickets for 32 runs against the Royal Challengers Banglore" in "Domestic Cricket"seems to have been taken from this. The date of the Quora article, Feb 22 2016 (posted by Raj Jain) predates its being posted to Wikipedia.Megaton Sheriff (talk) 10:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Removed thanks. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Jasprit Bumrah.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jasprit-bumrah.webp

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Request to move page to protected status

Someone keeps adding that Bumrah was involved in a "doping scam" with no understanding of what either doping or scam means. 106.205.1.200 (talk) 13:29, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Chetan Sharma doping claims

1. If the "injections" that helped Bumrah achieve fitness are not detected in anti-doping tests as said by Chetan Sharma himself, then using these injections, by definition, is not doping.

2. "Doping scam" doesn't even mean anything. There is no scam involved.

3. Bumrah underwent a doping test before the 2019 World Cup and passed it since he played the 2019 World Cup. Chetan Sharma said he used the injections before the 2021 India-Sri Lanka series. The page is currently edited in a way to suggest the two events are related and it fails to mention anything about him never failing a doping test.

The editor who keeps adding all this highly misinformed mess should be banned for vandalism. 14.139.38.169 (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this. I've had a look at the last 3 months of page edits, the three sources cited by the editors adding these claims, and WP's policies on semi-protection, edit warring, biographies of living persons, verifiability, and reliable sources.

The edits in question appear to be in good faith, rather than obvious vandalism. Edit warring is present - the claims in question have repeatedly been added and removed by different editors. While most of the parties involved are IP editors, with few edits to pages other than this one, at this stage I'd rather not submit an admin semi-protection request, as I think there's a possibility we can resolve the disagreement ourselves.

One of the sources (https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/jasprit-bumrah-undergoes-doping-test-119060301229_1.html) is a short article about Bumrah undertaking a routine doping test in 2019. As 14.139.38.169 has noted, it's irrelevant to the claims it's being used to support.

The other two sources (https://thecricketlounge.com/chetan-sharma-sting-by-zee-news, https://www.mensxp.com/health/celebrity-fitness/129345-chetan-sharma-sting-operation-chief-selector-accuses-jasprit-bumrah-others-of-using-fake-injections.html) are news outlets reporting on a Feb 2023 'sting' recording of the BCCI chief selector Chetan Sharma by Zee News: https://zeenews.india.com/cricket/live-updates/chetan-sharma-sting-operation-live-updates-bccis-selection-committee-chairman-reveals-how-team-india-players-take-fake-injections-2573280. Zee News, the publisher of this video is unlikely to meet WP reliability standards, as they "[have] been involved in several controversies and [have] broadcast fabricated news stories on multiple occasions". However, the video itself could be considered a separate, primary source; its publication led to Sharma submitting his resignation three days later.

Despite this, on current sourcing, I don't think this is sufficient to back up the claim that "Bumrah was alleged to have taken injections ... against anti-doping rules". Wikipedia policy for use of primary sources in biographies of living persons states "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. // Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources."

Even aside from the sourcing issue, Zee News' own video summary doesn't clearly back up this claim: "Jaspirt [sic] Bumrah was unable to bend as he had a major injury other than that there are one or two players who take injections in private and says that they are fit to play // No! I am talking about injections. If they take pain-killer than it will come in dopping [sic]. Team India players are aware about which injections come in anti-doping."

Based on all this, I'm removing the claims in question - they're not currently well-sourced enough to meet WP editorial policy on biographies of living persons. Special:Contributions/2409:4088:AE02:BDE9:5CF1:2A1F:DA60:28A7, Special:Contributions/47.11.197.248, Special:Contributions/47.11.202.82, if you disagree with this, please discuss it here on the talk page before editing further - hopefully we can either come to a consensus, or find someone with more policy expertise to help out here.

Cheers, Preimage (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jasprit Bumrah/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Vkwiki100 (talk · contribs) 06:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Richard Nevell (talk · contribs) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article over the next few days. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review. VK wiki100 02:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose is mostly fine, but there are some uses of jargon. For example ‘death bowling’ should be linked at the very least and perhaps include an explanatory note in brackets for readers who aren’t familiar with the term. For the average cricket article the audience would be primarily cricket fans but Bumrah has the kind of profile where people who are less familiar with the sport may be reading, making it more important to try to explain the more niche terms.

   On the manual of style, MOS:CONTRACTIONS encourages us not to use contractions, ‘did not’ instead of ‘didn’t’. That is the only one I have spotted in the article. The specific cricket style advice (which is an essay rather than a guideline) suggests the One Day International should be unhyphenated; it is currently hyphenated in the lead. Otherwise there are no issues with MOS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   ESPNcricinfo is one of the major sources for the article, which is reasonable since they are one of the leading news venues for cricket.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   (a) In terms of broad coverage, the article does have some significant gaps. With a sports biography it is easy to overload the page with information because of how much coverage there is on a match-by-match basis. That isn’t the case here, but there are some key omissions. I have listed some below this template. Also, it is worth noting the results of series, for example with the 2016 T20 World Cup; if this gets too detailed, prioritise the major ones.

   (b) In terms of focus, the level of detail fluctuates. More often than not, the article sticks to summary style, but sometimes there is more detail than needed. For example, in the description of the 2023 World Cup it seems that most matches that Bumrah played in are mentioned. As an alternative, a summary of his overall performance (joint fourth-highest wicket-taker in the tournament) and the team's performance (runner-up) would be enough. For a player who only featured in one World Cup, or a small number of international matches, more information would be fine, but a lot has happened in Bumrah's career already and there is going to be more to cover. To fit it in without the page becoming too long, the article needs to stick to a summary style.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   The article is stable. Over the long term, the article should change and become significantly different as Bumrah's career progresses. That isn't a barrier to becoming a Good Article, but does mean that in a few years the article may need to be revisited.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Overall, this is a promising article and a lot of time and effort has clearly gone into it already. Thank you for the effort you've put into covering an important topic. At under 4,000 words I was encouraged that the article is a manageable size. It is very easy for sports articles to grow and grow! However, I think there are some important events that need to be included which currently aren’t. I have placed the article on hold in case the issues can be resolved in a reasonable time frame.

Events to include

• Where an injury has resulted in Bumrah missing a match or series, it should be mentioned. For example, Bumrah missed the South African cricket team in India in 2019–20 with a stress fracture of the lower back.
• When mentioning the 2020 IPL, the article should explain that it was rearranged due to Covid.
• The Indian cricket team in Australia in 2020–21 is only mentioned in terms of the 55* that Bumrah scored in a match against Australia A. The article misses out that Bumrah played in the first three Tests before missing the last one due to injury and was subjected to racist abuse by the crowd at Sydney.
• Only the final match of the Indian cricket team in England in 2021 is mentioned in relation to Bumrah’s batting against Stuart Broad. Bumrah was player of the series. As the series began in 2021 and concluded a year later, it would be worth explaining that the final match was rearranged due to Covid.
• The 2021 Test final should be mentioned.
• Bumrah underwent back surgery in March 2023.
• He captained India against Ireland in the 2023 T20I series on his injury comeback.
• The bowling style section doesn’t mention Bumrah’s use of swing or reverse swing bowling. This 2021 analysis from Ben Jones of Cricviz notes that it is not Bumrah’s main attribute but gives some useful context. And this Cricviz piece from the year before mentions the seam movement that Bumrah can get.
• Jarrod Kimber’s analysis of Bumrah might be worth using as a reference. It would be a little unconventional to use a YouTube video as a reference, but Kimber is an established cricket writer and analyst and his videos are well researched.
• The same section mentions that Bumrah often bowls in death overs, but not that he often opens the bowling.

Could also mention

• Bumrah bowled with Malinga at MI and the pair were effective together.
• It’s possibly worth mentioning that Bumrah was included in Forbes’ India Celebrity Rich List in 2018.

Summary style issues

• The International Cricket Council (ICC) named him as one of the five exciting talents making their Cricket World Cup debut: while this is correct, I think it's a level of detail that isn't needed.
• Similarly to the above, you can probably cut the sentence about the opening match of the campaign being his 50th ODI. The fact that he was the second-fastest India player to 100 wickets gives the reader an orientation in the progression of time, especially if you add that it was in his 57th match.
• On 6 July 2019, in the match against Sri Lanka, Bumrah took his 100th wicket in ODIs and became the second-fastest Indian to do so after his teammate, Mohammed Shami, who is currently the fastest Indian to 100 ODI wickets: the bit after the final comma can be trimmed.
• Mentioning that Bumrah charges for brand endorsements is fine, but I’m not sure that we need to mention specific companies.

POV

Mostly a case of some light editing needed rather than anything egregious.

• Bumrah grabbed instant limelight during his IPL debut
• Legendary Australian fast bowler Dennis Lillee
• Bumrah carved himself a reputation for possessing an uncanny ability to hit the block hole: Perhaps this could be modified so that there is a quote from someone saying how good Bumrah is at hitting the block hole.
• There are a couple of uses of ‘just’ and ‘only’ which would be worth looking at. Eg: in Bumrah conceded just 14 runs, took two wickets ‘just’ suggests that this is a low figure but it depends on context - how many deliveries this was from and the match context - which would probably take up too many words to explain and take us away from a summary style.

Richard Nevell (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the thorough review. I will make edits wherever necessary, as suggested by you. VK wiki100 09:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have made some changes as per your suggestions. You can check the article now and let me know if there's anything else I can do. VK wiki100 07:12, 25 April 2024 (UTC)