Talk:2023 Asia Cup/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: Pharaoh496 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Joseph2302 (talk · contribs) 10:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a look at this article, and unfortunately it is well short of the standard for good articles. In particular, there is no prose summary of any of the matches, which means that it isn't broad enough in its coverage. Also, there are a number of citation needed templates, as well as some other minor issues that I will mention here.

• The lead size appears appropriate, although citations should be moved from the lead to the main article, as per MOS:LEADCITE.
• Background: no specific issues
• Format: In case Nepal and Afghanistan qualify for the Super Four stage, they will take the slot of the team knocked out (Pakistan or India in Group A and Sri Lanka or Bangladesh in Group B). needs tense change
• Teams and qualification: Content looks okay, though table needs a header as per MOS:TABLEHEADINGS
• Squads: Text looks okay, again table needs a header as per MOS:TABLEHEADINGS
• Venues: Need sources for the number of matches, as this isn't sourced anywhere in the article
• Match officials: No issues
• Group stage, Super Fours & Final sections: all need prose to summarise these matches. The failure of any prose in these sections means that the article is woefully incomplete, and cannot be considered for GA at this time, as it is well short of the GA criteria for this requirement. See for example 2019 Cricket World Cup#Summary as a good way to summarise the tournament (that article is a GA)
• Statistics: Using gold colour without a key violates MOS:COLOUR
• Broadcasting: Completely unsourced
• Images: I have questions about File:2023 Asia Cup logo.png, which I've started an FFD for. No other appropriate images have been used- it would be good if there were images of the event or the winning trophy for example

• Overall:

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):

   Needs more prose

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Too many citation needed tags

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No match/tournament summary in prose

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

   More relevant images would be appropriate, and I have questions on the logo

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)