Talk:2018 Pakistan Super League/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Matt294069 (talk · contribs) 11:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

If I am going to be honest there this is is a instant fail in my eyes as it fails rule 3 as there is no broad coverage of what happened throughout the tournament. Not only that but there is still tags in the article that needs to be address before this article can be up to scratch. I will see if anyone else sees my thought but this won't be GA right now.

If you want to know what a Good Article that is similar to this, check out the 2016 Women's Cricket Super League article as that might see what you need to add to get it to GA. Not Homura (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree completely, there is no mention of any of the matches / teams other than a couple of lines in the lead about the final which is not mentioned anywhere else. It is just a collection of match templates with no prose to explain them. Spike 'em (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys, I very much appreciate all your feedback. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.