Talk:Mustafizur Rahman

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 16:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am a WikiCup participant, as is the nominator.

Will review. Wugapodes (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

If the comment is numbered, it must be addressed for the article to pass, if it is bulleted, it's an optional suggestion or comment that you don't need to act on right now.
When I quote things, you can use ctrl+f to search the page for the specific line I quoted.

1. "he put an impressive performance" impressive feels like weasel word, it should either be a quote or the description of the game be given to avoid neutrality issues.

   YDone. In the references, there is no description on his performance. So to make it less important, I just changed it to an issue regarding his national selection. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

2. That paragraph should also probably have a citation.

   YDone. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

3. The article isn't clear to someone unfamiliar with cricket, largely because of the use of jargon. What's a "bagful of wickets"? "he bumped with Indian batsman" what does bumped mean? While some are wikilinked, I think a number of them could be better described in prose so that readers don't have to constantly click around to understand a biography.

   YDone. Reworded jargon and described unfamiliar glossaries relating cricket. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

4. Records and milestones should probably be written in prose per WP:USEPROSE

   YDone, although articles like Virat Kohli do not follow this policy. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

5. I feel like the article isn't "reasonably well written". The prose feels stillted, and I feel like it doesn't fully cover a number of aspects it mentions.

   Wugapodes can you show me some examples? Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

   Sure! The first is the "Early life" section which is a series of similarly structured declarative sentences. It reads more like a list of things than it does a biographical story. I also feel like the "Playing Style" and "Records and Milestones" adequately cover the topic. Perhaps they could be included in another section? They just feel incredibly short which makes me feel like there may be things not included. Wugapodes (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

6. "This established him as an opening bowler. Generally, he is very consistent with his line and length." The citation given does not seem to make any mention of this.

   YDone. Removed his bowling position as it is not mentioned specifically in any site, though it can be visualized in the bowling scorecards. Here is a example - http://www.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/current/match/817209.html. For his line and length, I put a suitable site. Ikhtiar H (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Results

Second opinion I feel like this article needs a lot of work before I'm willing to promote, particularly in regards to criteria one and three. I'm going to ask for a second opinion on whether to hold or not list, but in the mean time, feel free to start addressing the points I raised above. Wugapodes (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I corrected most of the errors picked up by the first reviewer. The on field umpire is asking for a third umpire review (Relating to cricket!). Anyways, more points from the second reviewer on ways to pass GA will be appreciable. I will try copyediting in the interim. Thanks Wugapodes. Ikhtiar H (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

On a second read-through, I actually think the article is better than I first gave it credit for. I'm going to keep the second opinion up for a few days just to see if I can get some outside input, but if you resolve the last comment and no one has offered one by the 26th, I'll pass it without the second opinion. Wugapodes (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I did the best I could. Created a new section. If you have other queries, please feel free to unveil. Ikhtiar H (talk) 14:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Listed I am convinced the article meets the GA criteria, though I think a good deal of work can and should still be done to get it up to A-class or FA level. I would strongly recommend a peer review to improve the flow of prose and just as a general copy edit to get more eyes on it than just mine. Still, a quality contribution, and I hope you keep up the good work! Wugapodes (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thank you so much! It was in a very bad state a few days back, almost stub. This guy became famous following his international career less than a year ago. Hopefully, he will continue his career from his ongoing career soon. And along with that, this page will gradually increase as well. This is indeed an example of a short article GA. Ikhtiar H (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Good article status

I was surprised to see this listed as a good article, and see that the review only took place recently. My concern is mainly with the "reasonably well written" criteria. I see that concern was expressed about this in the review, but that the article was subsequently judged as being up to standard. There are quite a few sentences in the article that I find hard to understand the meaning of. Some examples:

• "He was embraced heavily in his outset as he took most number of wickets (13) in a debut ODI series". Embraced heavily by whom, and what is "his outset"?
• "Mustafizur Rahman's interest in cricket rose when he started practising the game 40 kilometers away from home every morning, led by his brother Mokhlesur Rahman". In what way was he led? Did his brother teach him, show him the way to the place 40 kms away, etc.?
• "He was admitted to the BCB's base of fast bowling". What is a base in this context?
• "Reluctant to consign him, the BCB would commence a controversy regarding this". Huh?
• "The match became more eventful as he was fined for the jolting conflict with Indian captain MS Dhoni". What is "the jolting conflict"?
• "While delivering the last ball of the second match, he felt inconvenience due to shoulder injury". Poor grammar.
• "Rahman was assisted by captain Mashrafe Mortaza on post-match interview twice, and on a press conference once". Assisted in what way?
• "Normally, he struggles on media as an individual right from the beginning of his career". Poor grammar.
• "In his first ODI match, he was whacked by the Indian batsman MS Dhoni on two occasions: the first time they both collided while Dhoni was running and Rahman blocked the crease; and the following collision was pretty much same except Dhoni deceiving Rahman by thrusting him. The incident cost both men to be fined post-match". Strange grammar and choice of words.

These issues can probably be resolved pretty easily if someone has the time to proofread the article and check the sources to clarify meanings, but unless this happens then I don't think that it is appropriate for the article to be listed as a GA. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I started to check some sources, and ran into more problems. The article states that "Batsmen also find it difficult to read his bowling line and length". The source for this claim is about a three-match series, in which "India's top batsmen failed to read his line and length". Can we generalise based on three matches? I would argue not. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: Thanks for the heads up (and for checking over the article). I will say that I had a number of concerns about the writing, but the particular ones you raised I chalked up to being a different variety of English. I think the article could be better written, which is why I recommended a peer review, and I recognize maybe our standards for "reasonably well written" are a little divergent. I removed the controversial line. If the rest of your issues aren't addressed in a reasonable time and you think the article should not be listed as a GA, I recommend a community reassessment. Wugapodes (talk) 00:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Wugapodes, and for removing that sentence. I do think there are genuine problems with the clarity of the article. I've also just spotted "Rahman assessed in his emergence to international cricket by bowling off cutter". I don't believe that that makes sense in any variety of English. I would normally be happy to proofread the article myself - it's not long - but I do think that any proofreader will need to check lots of sources for meaning, and I don't have time for that at the moment. If things aren't fixed, I'll do as you suggest and list it for reassessment. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: thanks for taking your time for analysis. It seems like I am the only one involved to upgrade this article. Anyways I am done (if not perfect) with the cleanups you suggested. I would appreciate more critics. Ikhtiar H (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ikhtiar H. I hope you didn't take my comments too personally. You've done a good job with the article - I just think that the GA status was a bit premature. Your cleanup has helped, although some of my comments still stand (e.g. what does "Rahman assessed in his emergence" mean?). It shouldn't be all up to you to fix this, by the way. It would be good to get someone else in to help with the copy editing. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to meet you Ijaj ahmed (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Teams

The article currently lists Rahman as playing for six different domestic teams simultaneously. I know that players often play for a few teams in different countries, but is he really on the books of six clubs at present? Cordless Larry (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: He isn't playing 'simultaneously' for different teams. Currently, he is in Sunrisers Hyderabad for the ongoing Indian Premiere League which is held only for a month. I don't know much about Sussex County Cricket Club, but I am quite sure that the season will start on May for around there months. He played for Dhaka Dynamites back in December 2015 in BPL and it will happen this year also. He was selected Lahore Qalandars for this year's PSL season but missed out for injury. A cricketer can skip domestic games whenever there are international matches. Ikhtiar H (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ikhtiar H. I was aware that cricketers are able to play for different sides in different countries due to the way that seasons work (my use of "simultaneously" was unfortunate), but six seemed a lot and I wondered whether we had failed to notice that he had finished playing for some. Perhaps not, though. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Revert

@Ikhtiar H: Why did you revert this? Unless it is a vandalism, please always explain in the edit summery or the talk page of the article before reverting an edit. - Mar11 (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mar11: Franchise T20 statistics are irrelevant. I reverted IPL 2016 because the season is not over yet (waiting to summarize the final result). Plus it is unnecessary to note down all the batsmen he dismissed. Ikhtiar H (talk) 09:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ikhtiar H: Okay. - Mar11 (talk)

GA Request

This article has been tagged for a GA reassessment. A tag on the front asks for it to be updated. This will need to occur. It probably could do with a good copy edit too. In international career it has a subsection for injury problems, yet is not really about injury problems. It just seems a bit light on details in general. AIRcorn (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Mustafizur Rahman/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

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

---

The article gets the presumption of for all six criteria (since it is currently already GA) unless I give an explanation pointing to the contrary.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The prose/writing is fine. But the article structure seems very confusing and unprofessional--

   “International career” and “domestic career” sections do not make sense! —Why is 2016 domestic achievements after 2019 World Cup? All his career highlights should be chronologically listed.

   “Injury problems” subsection contains non-injury related info.

   “Personal life” section should be separate from “early life” and placed later in the article.

   “Playing style” should be merged into a “career” section.

   “Records and achievements” would look better either in paragraphs or wikitable, not bullet points.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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.:

   Lack of article stability: update required? I’m no cricket expert, maybe someone else can shed a light on whether this article contains the subject’s latest career stats.

6. 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):

   Another photo of the subject from his early life, if one is available, would be lovely.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll try to fix stuff to the best of my ability. The last thing I want to do is to delist this or any GA. I have reached out to the nominator and major editors, and let's get this article back to GA standards!

• @Nemoschool: How is this going? Ready to close it yet? AIRcorn (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Obviously abandoned. In two minds on this. I don't think it is terribly out of date as not much cricket (or sport in general) has been played this year. I don't like the prose though. Seeing as this has been left in limbo for so long I am going to close as no consensus. If another editor is willing to take on a GA reassessment they are welcome to AIRcorn (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Note

Make a section on wrist spin with pace --Greatder (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)