Talk:2018 Pakistan Super League/GA2
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 02:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I will be reviewing this article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Just from browsing this article, I can see some massive faults in the Manual of Style as their are barely any commas to just take a break and instead just so many full stops. What this needs is a copyedit of the article just so that it is presentable and at least has potential to go for an Good Article because in this state it not even close. Another issue is the lack of consistently on the references as I counted and there was five different ways that you have put ESPN Cricinfo throughout the entire article. Also what about finding references that isn't related to the Cricinfo, like I assume their were references in Pakistan newspapers about this tournament.
All in all, it's not close to being an Good Article and if I was you, I would probably remove the other nominations and try and get one over the line before putting the next one down. HawkAussie (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@HawkAussie: Thanks for the comments. I've already started correcting the ways I have put Cricinfo and tried to add a few different sources. But about the sources can you tell me which ones are unreliable and where I have not added a source resulting in the fail on original research. Finally how can I improve the article being broad in its coverage as I think it has a paragraph for every week of the tournament and a paragraph for each game in the knockout stages. Thanks once again for the feedback and I'm sorry if I am being a bit overeager and annoying CreativeNorth (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth: For me it's just about focusing on sources outside of cricinfo because it mainly goes down to be too many sources that relate back to Cricinfo and not enough to other sources (like the Pakistan newspapers) which is my main worry. HawkAussie (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@HawkAussie: OK I have gone through the article and replaced 31 Cricinfo sources, replacing them with sources mostly from Pakistani newspapers. Is the article OK source wise now and do I need to just copyedit it. Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@HawkAussie: I've took your feedback and tried to apply it with the sources and the copyediting, however I've probably done something wrong so if you have the time, can you have a look through the article and notify me of any mistakes or worries about the article? Sorry once again, thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth: Look just sent over to WP:GOCE just so it will be more professional look. Also yes it is good with the sources. Until that is done and gone through the GOCE process, I will close this review now. HawkAussie (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)