Talk:Jos Buttler

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jos Buttler/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC) A well written, fairly comprehensive article about a fairly short career! My main issues are with referencing.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

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, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Lead

• "Buttler enjoyed a prolific cricket record while at school, being one half of a record-breaking opening partnership while at King's College, Taunton in 2008, and the following season his school lost only one of seventeen matches under captaincy, and he was named 2009 Young Wisden Schools Cricketer of the Year." Long run-on sentence. Also, is "shared a record breaking opening partnership" better than "being one half of"?

Is it worth saying what the record partnership was, even though it's in the lead?

• I'm not sure that it's worth stating the specifics here, given it is expanded on only a little more in the main part of the article anyway.

• Should the lead state that he made his debut for the Somerset first team in 2009?

• Done - added.

Early life and career

• "Buttler played extensively for Somerset's youth teams, appearing at Under-13, Under-15 and Under-17 level." Is there a ref for this?

• Done - added.

• Who did he play against on his debut for Somerset 2nd XI?

• Done - added.

• "The highlight of his school career came in April 2008, when he scored 227 not out during a record-breaking opening stand in a 50-over national schools game, scoring 340 with Alex Barrow." Use of "scored" and "scoring" very close together; maybe "putting on 340" or "adding 340"?

• Done - changed as suggested.

• "the Somerset Second XI" doesn't quite sound right, but it could just be me.

• Done - removed 'the', although I don't think it makes a difference either way.

• "With captain Carl Gazzard keeping wicket in the majority of these matches, Buttler played purely as a batsman" Is there any way to reference this? I don't doubt it's true, and I am possibly being pedantic.

• I'm not really sure how it could be referenced, short of citing the scorecard for all the matches, which seems slightly like overkill?

Agree that is too much. It really needs an article of some sort which says it all nicely, like some sort of profile. Not sure there is one.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Not really much written about Second XI cricket.. Harrias ^talk 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• The image in this section needs Alt text at some point.

• Done - added.

First team opportunity

• "Buttler made his maiden first class century scoring 144 against Hampshire in May 2010." Ref for this? I suspect it's a very recent addition!

• Done - yeah, added by an IP user. I've reworded and cited.

• "...and made starts in each of the following matches, reaching double figures on each occasion, but not scoring higher than 28." Does this need a ref?

• Done - added.

• "He joined up with the squad in Bangladesh following Somerset's elimination from the Champions League Twenty20 for the seven-match youth ODI series. As with his previous appearance for the Under-19s, Buttler played as a specialist batsman, but failed to make a significant impact until the final match..." Again, I think this might need a ref, as the only refs given are scorecards.

• What sort of reference do you want? The scorecards themselves show that he is playing as a specialist batsman (as opposed to a wicket-keeper batsman). Beyond the scorecards, there isn't really anything I can provide.

I take your point. What about here? But it may be impossible to do thoroughly, so fair enough! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm... how about this? Harrias ^talk 22:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

General

• Needs PERSONDATA.

• Done - added.

• Images fine.
• All links fine.
• Sources are reliable.

As I said, the prose is good and even though it's pretty much a list of scores and performances, it reads well. It seems a bit short as the chap hasn't played much and no doubt the article will expand as he plays more. I think that it could do with fleshing out a little. Are there any details about his personal life? At the very least, a comment about when and where he was born in the main body of the article, not just the infobox. Or any judgements on his performances or potential, particularly for Somerset or England U19? Does Wisden have anything?

If this doesn't exist, it's fine but I just wanted to check. I do think that some more refs and sources are needed, so I'll put it on hold. Don't see any major issues, though. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't really much of any note, purely due to his age. If he simply hasn't had enough cricket to have an article long enough to warrant GA status, I can accept that, although looking around, there are a fair few quite short GAs. Harrias ^talk 20:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I found a few general references about him here and here as well as Wisden 2010 pp. 935-6. It might give a bit of general background if it helps at all, but feel free to ignore it as I think you might have better stuff yourself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think he has enough info for GA status. I'll wait and see what you think about what I've said, but it's probably almost good to go now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it's ok now. Presumably more will become available once he's played a bit more and more is found out about him. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jos Buttler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725090952/http://www.somersetcountycc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/Newsdetail/0%2C%2C11333~2025849%2C00.html to http://www.somersetcountycc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/Newsdetail/0%2C%2C11333~2025849%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100517040647/http://www.skysports.com/cricket/match_report/0%2C19822%2C11066_85647%2C00.html to http://www.skysports.com/cricket/match_report/0%2C19822%2C11066_85647%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Community reassessment

Jos Buttler

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Kept It's not perfect, but perfect is not the aim. Could do with some updating and a few more references. Howeer it meets our definition of good and I have no problem keeping it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This was one of my first ever Good articles, way back in 2010. Sadly, since then I have not kept the article up to date as Buttler's career has skyrocketed. Ytfc23 has done a pretty good job of updating the article in places, but it needs both more (and less detail) in places to meet the GA requirements 3a and 3b. The referencing in places is appalling, from the start of the 2012 South Africa, T20 World Cup and India section through to the end of the International career section there are in total four references covering eight subsections and five years. This needs a lot of work to bring it back to GA status, which unfortunately I am not currently able or willing to put into it. Harrias ^talk 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I've not done this before and have little experience working at GA+ level, so if I'm a mile out with my comments then someone needs to tell me. I'll treat it as a learning process...

As the article stands right now there are clear issues - especially when it is compared to the article when it passed GA in 2010. Some of those issues have come about simply because Buttler has played a lot more cricket in the interim. Overall I'm of the view that it needs a fair degree of work to update it firstly. There are some other specific issues that could use addressing.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): generally, yes, although there are some sections that could use brushing up (personality and style for example)

   b (MoS): the lead could use refreshing as above. The layout is OK although it could use some thought and there may be better ways to structure the article. I have an issue with the lists from Statistics on down - these don't really have any clear context (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists) and some, at least, might be better presented as prose. For example, the man of the match awards might be better as key benchmarks in a section about his international career (see 3b below). There are four entire sections of statistics essentially bolted on to the bottom of the article which seems excessive to me. At the very least these could be condensed or included in other sections. And each will need a prose introduction at least.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): lots of refs, although as Harrias points out there are whole sections with few, if any, references.

   b (citations to reliable sources): fine

   c (OR): I have some concerns with the use of scorecards if they're going to be used to show anything other than participation. I would prefer if we could find alternative sources - for his very early career this may not be necessary as the references essentially show participation; for his international career I'd hope that we could fine match reports and the like instead of using scorecards (but, see 3b).

   d (copvios/plagiarism): no problems that I can see, although the detail needs checking

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): there's virtually no coverage of his Lancashire career and none at all of his play in the IPL and BPL

   b (focused): The international section is much too detailed. At times it tells us more about the match results and so on than it does Buttler's career. This needs to be radically summarised. Some of the subheadings might use rethinking as well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: seems reasonable in general

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.: I don't see any major ones from the history

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): fine for this level, although it'd be nice to add some more if available

   b (appropriate use with suitable captions): dates could be added to a couple

Summary:

• needs updating, especially for domestic and franchise cricket, and some brushing up of style etc...
• international section needs summarising massively
• I'm not sure how best to structure the domestic/international parts - ideas?
• lists at the bottom need either including within prose, reducing to one section or removing (or a combination of the above)

I know I could be wrong about some or all of that. I'm entirely happy to learn from this and would really appreciate someone else looking through my points are telling me where I'm wrong. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I've largely gutted the massive amounts of detail in the international section and done some work on other areas. Lots of referencing is needed and there's probably more that can be put back into the international section I would think - there's bound to be some juicy details that I've missed. It's a start though. I've made some other tweaks and will add a Franchise cricket section at some point, although I'm not altogether sure if that's desirable or not to be honest. Feel free to rewrite entirely - there are bound to be a bunch of typos in there as well... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jos Buttler. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20130505084350/http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Somerset-hopeful-Buttler-set-profit-Kieswetter-s-England-heroics/article-1862840-detail/article.html to http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/news/Somerset-hopeful-Buttler-set-profit-Kieswetter-s-England-heroics/article-1862840-detail/article.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

T20I Header Stats

Jos Buttler has made 66 appearances for England in T20Is and I believe it should be added to his career stats in the header. Thoughts?

The long term consensus is that we tend to use Test, ODI, FC and LA unless there is a clear case where T20I is preferable. In Buttler's case, he's played >200 LA matches and less than 75 T20I - so I'm generally of the opinion that the long term consensus that we stick to the four standard columns would apply. This has been discussed on the infobox talk page - you may have the check the archive - and at the cricket project (where you'll definitely have to wade through the archive). A compromise was arrived at whereby common sense could be used to figure out if T20I should be included or not - so, for example, someone like Andrew Tye it actually makes sense to exclude the FC stats - but this is very rare. I'd say Buttler is close to using T20I on, but I'd be interested to see other opinions before we make that change - so I'll softly revert for now to give you a chance to read the background info on all of this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay noted. Beast01998 (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Still a GA?

Is this really still a GA standard article? It hasn't been updated with significant text since 2022, there are numerous sentences of unsourced text, some of the teams listed in the infobox aren't mentioned in the text at all (e.g. Paarl), or with more than one sentence (Originals). Also, the T20 franchise sections have way too many headers for one paragraph, which aren't needed, and looks to be bordering towards IPL excessive stats and focusing only on incidents too, rather than encyclopedic, WP:NPOV content. If this were to be re-assessed, I believe it would fail GA right now, but happy for people to work on improving this article instead of putting it up for GA review. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It's far too "unstable" and ref bombed to be anywhere near GA. Given he is an active player, it's just not worth the constant hassle of updating and reverting to even get the article anywhere close to GA again. Think a GA review would be the best action. AA (talk) 13:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I have started a GA re-assessment discussion: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jos Buttler/2. Anyone is free to contribute there. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Jos Buttler

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 • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

This article hasn't been updated recently, and so fails criteria 3a, as it isn't broad enough in coverage. And also fails 3b by being overly detailed in places. Domestic career section has too much coverage of 2010-2013 and almost nothing since (and absolutely nothing about the 7 seasons he's played for Lancashire). International career section hasn't been updated since 2022. There are numerous sentences of unsourced text, some of the teams listed in the infobox aren't mentioned in the text at all (e.g. Paarl), or with more than one sentence (Originals). Also, the T20 franchise sections have way too many headers for one paragraph, which aren't needed, and looks to be bordering towards IPL excessive stats and focusing only on incidents too, rather than encyclopedic, WP:NPOV content. So in conclusion, it fails criteria 1b (MOS violations), 2b (unsourced content), 3a and 3b (lacking details in places, overdetailed in others), 4 (IPL section is POV). Looks like it just about survived a GA review in 2018, but the article has got significantly worse in quality since then, and cannot be considered a GA anymore in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I have notified everyone who participated in either the GA promotion and/or first GA re-assessment in 2018, as well as WP:CRIC, and mentioned this on Talk:Jos Buttler where I raised some of these concerns earlier this year. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree - article is nowhere close to GA status on a number of criteria. I did some work on it in 2017 but it was hard going and it's much, much worse now. Huge amounts of over detail, far too many subsections, many of which are unnecessary and entirely unsourced - it would be easy to do so, but there's just far too much detail. The lead and domestic section are fine and the playing style bit is probably OK as well. They'd make the basis of a decent article - with a bit of an update in the domestic bit. But the rest is a pretty epic fail as Joseph says above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Delist. Keeping any article of a current player of such prominence to GA/FA standard is virtually impossible. Currently, it falls a long way short of the standard required, having been hijacked by IP's and editors of poor competence. AA (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

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.