Talk:Indian Premier League/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article is a quite a long way from GA at the moment. The main reason is that there are long sections without any references, and this is a major requirement for a GA. There are also issues of broad coverage as there seem to be some things missing. I have left some general points below, but I would suggest asking for another editor to take a look and maybe copy-edit the article before renominating. Once the issues below are addressed, maybe submit the article at WP:PR for further review.

Referencing

This is enough on its own for the article to fail:

The sections on the first three seasons are all unreferenced. The fourth season section is partially referenced, but not all the facts given have a source; given that these are living persons being discussed, a reference is essential for all claims.
The IPL Trophy section is unreferenced.
The League Organisation section is also partially referenced, but not close to enough to satisfy the GA criteria. Again, most, if not all, facts need a reference. The same for Television rights and sponsorships.

Broad coverage

There is quite a lot missing from this article. These are just some of my suggestions

History: For each season, which teams did well? Which teams did badly? Which team were the favourites? Who were the leading run-scorers, wicket-takers and who topped the tables for strike rate, economy rate, etc? (In other words, who were the star performers?) How popular was it? How many watched it? What was coverage like? What did critics say (and the IPL has had a LOT of coverage!)? If I remember, the second season in South Africa was quite a big deal and there were unfounded worries over its popularity: I think more needs saying on the relocation that year and why there was such a security worry at the time. I also think much more is needed on the corruption scandal in the fourth season.
Does the trophy really need its own section, or could it be merged into the history section?
I like the franchises section a lot; could the text in the table be made larger?
I can't remember if the timeout rule is the same as the mid-innings break. Either way, I remember a lot of criticism in the "conservative" cricket press that this was just an excuse for more adverts. Also, there has been criticism of the over-use of advertising (e.g. DLF Maximum)
Player signings: I don't know how hard it would be (I can't remember how many players are involved for each season) but it may be good to list the player auction results in a sortable table, including nationality, appearances, cost, runs, etc.
I think the table on winnings broadcasters for each nation should go as it does not really add to the article. (Also the table on profits seems a little messed up at the moment)
Global following: Only mentions the UK at present: what about other countries?
What about copy-cat leagues? Something could be said about other countries following (or trying to follow) suit such as Australia.
More could be made of the furore over the ICL: this is briefly mentioned in the lead. What about a "background" section which includes this and how the various parties planned and brought about the IPL?
What about the worries over the effect of the IPL on world cricket and making players choose not to play other forms of cricket (e.g. Chris Gayle)? The press is always running stories about how the IPL will ruin international cricket, Test cricket, ODIs, and just about everything else! This could be covered briefly. Also, the effects on technique and maybe something about how it has influenced cricket shots and tactics. Even what people have said about the quality of play (I've read judgements ranging from amazing to mediocre). What about the opinions of players, journalists, etc.

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The prose is not quite up to standard, but I have not looked at it closely enough to say that it fails. At the very least, a copy-edit is needed, but I don't think the prose is too far away from OK.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
This is a big problem. Many sections are unreferenced or just partially referenced where two or three sentences are given a ref but not the whole paragraph. As such, without references, most of the article would constitute OR. I have not looked closely at the reliability of the sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
I think there are several areas the article should cover which are missing, outlined above. However, the existing content (except for a few parts listed above) seems focussed.
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):
I'm not convinced by the non-free rationale for the logo, but I'm no expert on this and I think an image expert is needed to decide. However, the 2011 Champions photo is almost certainly not justified and should be removed. It is not a significant photo, the photo (as opposed to the event) is not mentioned in the article and it is easily replaceable by another photograph of the team (albeit not at that moment, but I don't believe that precise moment is significant enough to justify fair use.) The fact that the rationale notes the ground was closed to the public suggests the rights holders wanted to protect their copyright.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I have not considered prose or MoS too much and this should also be looked at closely before the article is renominated. When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. However, I would suggest that the article needs a lot of work before re-submission. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]