Talk:2021 Pakistan Super League

Deletion

A Simple Human want to unilaterally delete this article without discussing. Can we get mroe opinions on this please. Mar4d, Umais Bin Sajjad, Faizan, IamZulqarnain, Fushan007, Human3015, THe Floka,Samee,Anjana Larka, Syed Hassan Raza Bukhari, Asimtanveer, Jogi don, Musa Raza, Rayatbiz, TheGreatWikiLord, Wiki.0hlic,Hamza Ali Shah, Badsaad10, Bilal190023, NotJuggerNot, CreativeNorth, ShahFahad191, lugnuts, and bluesquarething Thanks. KSAWikipedian (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I see no problem in keeping this article, but the 2022 and 2023 ones have been created too early and should be deleted. Wiki.0hlic ^(talk)

@KSAWikipedian: When did I delete the article? I just redirected it. The sources doesn't clearly say anything significant other than about a new team that too 6 months ago. This article has redirected previously after another user created it with similar sources. @Lugnuts and Wiki.0hlic: This user also reported me in the admin's board. I don't see the need for discussion if the article is redirected before. Didn't know dealing with weird people will get me in trouble. Human (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Wiki.0hlic, I just wanna add the fact fact that ICC has move the worldcup for the 2023 version makes it notable already. Therefor it deserves an article. KSAWikipedian (talk) 07:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC) A Simple Human You kept blanking an article that multiple users had edited without any discussion despite my request to discuss before making changes, what di dyou expect me to do? I needed to report you for failure to discuss. KSAWikipedian (talk) 07:57, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Article shouldn't be deleted but it can be redirect to Main Article as long as there is not much information available for a full article. Creating pages for 2022 or 2023 is unnecessary right now as there is no information about league happening in those years, schedules can change. - Anjana Larka 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Image Rights

Hi @M.Billoo2000:, I changed the image on the grounds that the other image is pretty much the same as the free one. WP:NFCCP part 1 states that a non free image should only be used if there is no free equivalent that could achieve the same purpose, and I don't see what substantial difference a reader would get from the non free one that they wouldn't get from the free one so it also doesn't pass clause 8. Anyway if you disagree then feel free to reply here or else I will change back in a couple of days. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@CreativeNorth: Hi, Thanks for your response. See some WP:GAs: SpongeBob SquarePants (season 1), SpongeBob SquarePants (season 2), etc. As for the TV audience, the PSL is also changing its title card; that's my opinion. That's why I have put images in PSL season 5 and 6 articles. I wish if there were logos for PSL seasons 1-4 also, see [1]. Thanks! M. Billoo 19:28, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: Sorry for reverting M.Billoo2000 I made a mistake. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@CreativeNorth: Hi, hope you'd be fine. Kindly analyze this: Special:Diff/1064251436. I haven't removed any piece of information from the page, except one that was written under Format. Actually, my point was that the Format has already been defined in the parent article Pakistan Super League#Format, so there is no need to have copy paste that thing here. Also, maybe you might be confused that I have dropped a lot of bytes from the page, well that has nothing to do with the GA review. 😂 I just shortened the URLs by removing unnecessary part of them.

And yes I have read the GA review already, after which one thing I asked, that is kindly review the references in lead section as the information has been cited below in "#COVID-19 pandemic impact" section. Also I tried to raise an issue, WP:CITEKILL, but I didn't work on it here.

Check my edits again, hope I cleared my concerns to make you understand. Thanks! 😇 M. Billoo 12:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I've checked and everything about Covid that is sourced in the pandemic section is unsourced in the lead so I think it is fine. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@CreativeNorth: ok. Have you analyzed my edits so I can put them back? While you are appreciated for your works to update PSL articles up to GA, but as I said, my those edits that you reverted have nothing to do with the GA review. You only answered my one part. 😢 Thanks! M. Billoo 23:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh sure, I never had a problem with any of the source edits, though the Pandemic section is not cite-kill and it would be beneficial to keep the section about the format. Feel free to redo the source edits again. Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2021 Pakistan Super League/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kpddg (talk · contribs) 04:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello CreativeNorth. I will be be GA reviewing this article in the coming days. Please contact me for any problems. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 04:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Section-wise Assessment

I'll be doing a section-wise review here. There will be some corrections needed. Please do help with them @CreativeNorth. Thanks again. Kpddg ^(talk) 09:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @Kpddg: I’ll try and respond to your comments and resolve any issues over the next few days. CreativeNorth (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead Section

• What does it mean by 'second season to be held entirely in Pakistan'? Please clarify.

Added "after the previous seasons were held elsewhere due to the security situation there" so I think that is fine. YCreativeNorth (talk)

• 'On 11 March 2021, the PCB confirmed that they were aiming to reschedule the remaining fixtures for June 2021.'

Y Done. CreativeNorth (talk)

• 'On 18 March 2021, the PCB proposed the tournament resume on either 2 or 6 June and end on 20 June 2021, with all matches to be held in Karachi.' Sentence needs to be improvised grammatically

Y Changed to “On 18 March 2021, the PCB proposed for the tournament to resume on either 2 or 6 June and end on 20 June 2021, with all matches to be held in Karachi.” I think that’s fine. CreativeNorth (talk)

• 'On 11 April 2021, the PCB announced that....'

Y Fixed. CreativeNorth (talk)

• 'The PCB proposed holding the entire tournament in Abu Dhabi.' Replace with 'to hold' Y Done. CreativeNorth (talk)
• Main problem - This entire section is unsourced. Add sources

 Pending approval @Kpddg: I cited a sentence that is not repeated in the body. As for the rest I think MOS:CITELEAD applies here and all other statements are repeated in the body so I think this is fine. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong because I probably am. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@CreativeNorth: The second para, where info about several reschedules are given, is not much mentioned later. So providing citations for that part will be sufficient. Kpddg ^(talk) 02:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Background

• 'An extra 10% could also have been allowed in after the group stage' What does it mean by 'could have been'? Was an extra 10% allowed or not?

Y added "but was not when the tournament moved to the UAE." Think that is fine. CreativeNorth (talk)

Squads

• Why have some names been strike-throughed? What does that imply? Please clarify.

 Pending approval @Kpddg: I'm not going to lie my knowledge of tables is not the best. I think I have fixed it but would you mind taking a look. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@CreativeNorth: This is very good. 👍

Venues

• This section is fine

Match Officials

• Why has reference 26 been cited two times here? Remove the first.

Y First reference has been removed.CreativeNorth (talk)

Promotion

• Fine; informative; good references
• Why has Imran Khan been included under artists? He is the Prime Minister....😂

Y Removed. I was probably editing while half asleep lol. CreativeNorth (talk)

Pandemic Impact

• Good

League Stage

• Fine

Fixtures

• Good Section
• Do not need to mention who made his debut in the fixtures. Viewers will know if they click on the scorecard. Writing about the toss/match delayed is fine.

Y Removed now. CreativeNorth (talk)

Summary

• A moderately detailed scorecard is already given. According to me, a week-by-week summary is not needed. This section can be deleted.

@Kpddg: Are you sure here? 2019 Cricket World Cup is quite similar to this article and has both scorecards and a summary which is how I assume it is broad in it's coverage for criteria point 3. What do you think? CreativeNorth (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@CreativeNorth: Ok then. I was having the opinion that this section was not needed. Let this be there then. One point of improvement, an image of a prominent performer can be added for each week. Kpddg ^(talk) 02:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Y Not the best looking but images have been added. CreativeNorth (talk)

I earlier said to add image, but after seeing now I felt it was too much. I removed a couple, hope that looks fine. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Playoffs

• Needs lot of improvement
• Content may interest only a particular audience
• Too detailed; just a brief summary will suffice
• The finals is okay, but improve the others

Y OK. I've reduced the size of the summary's for the Qualfier, Elim 1 and 2. That should be fine. CreativeNorth (talk)

Ok, fine Kpddg ^(talk)

Awards & Statistics

• Good
• I made a couple of minor improvements here

On Hold for Improvements

Several improvements need to be made. The nominator CreativeNorth has not yet responded. So I will place this article  On hold for 1 week. Further decision will be made after making these improvements. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 14:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Nice work CreativeNorth. I reviewed the article once again, and everything looked fine. There's just this one improvement in the lead section left, which has been mentioned. Can promote to GA status once that is worked upon. Thank You. Kpddg ^(talk) 11:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kpddg: I think that is everything. I have added sources to the unsourced bits in the lead and all the remaining statements in the second paragraph are sourced in the pandemic section. Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:01, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Right CreativeNorth. Missed that earlier....my apologies. Will pass the article. Thank you for your efforts. Kpddg ^(talk) 12:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem @Kpddg:. Thanks for all your help here, I appreciate it. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Final Assessment

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 (references): 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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass:
· · ·

This article is  Passed

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:

• PSL-homeground.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)