Talk:Shakib Al Hasan/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article shortly. I note that since I'm not really a cricket kind of guy, I may need to give it a couple reads before a review, so it could be a couple days. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I found:

"ensured he retained the position even once Mortaza had recovered." 'after Mortaza recovered' sounds clearer.

I agree with the change and Harrias has implemented it. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Test cricketer of the year" seems off that just the first word in that award is capitalized; double-check that.

The source I used isn't even consistent, using both "Test player of the year." and "Test Player of the Year". But as it's an award I think it should probably be capitalised and it now is. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"was taught by his father who previously played for Khulna Division, and a cousin had represented Bangladesh." comma after father and add who after cousin

Harrias again implemented the change which seemed reasonable. I wasn't quite happy with how it sounded though so went back to the source to see how I could rephrase it, and to be fair although his father played a match for Khulna Division and one of Shakib's cousins represented Bangladesh at national level, it doesn't mention anyone actually teaching him football so I've removed that bit as it doesn't seem quite so relevant any more. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Shakib was representing Bangladesh U19s." sounds odd as worded; I'm pretty sure i know what it means, but I don't think that's how it's written. Maybe say that Shakib represented Bangladesh in the Under-19 Cricket World Cup, or something similar?

I agree with the suggestion and Harrias has the change. Harrias correctly removed the bit about Shakib being 15 and playing for the U19s; while the source does describe him as 15 I think this was a typo as in 2005 he would have been 18. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You use the first name when referring to him, which is improper for encyclopedia articles.

As with a lot of Asian players, Shakib is referred to by his first name. Aaroncrick ^TALK 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; wasn't sure about how that worked. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references don't have publisher info (i presume they're cricinfo, but nonetheless need to be added.

I could only spot four references that were missing publisher information (120 to 123 in this version) and those have been fixed. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magura's a disambiguation page; fix it where used in the first sentence.

Again, Harrias is the one responsible for fixing the dab link. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the team caused an upset by India" i get what you're trying to say, but it sounds strange as worded.

Harrias (I'm beginning to notice a pattern here) filled in the missing word. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Brett Lee claimed Shakib's wicket," a player claiming another's wicket sounds wrong. that could be normal though and my lack of cricket knowledge is showing instead. if that's the case maybe link claiming if there's an article for its use in cricket.

"Claimed" was used an alternative to "took" to avoid becoming monotonous, but you make a fair point so I've changed it. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"had focussed" focused

Harrias fixed that typo. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"keep together a core squad of talented players to gain experience at international level." at the international level

I agree with that suggestion and have implemented it. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About halfway done, but am going to hold off for another day or two. My apologies that I'm working slowly on this. Putting the article on hold so that we can at least get progress on what I have covered. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, due to a lack of time on my end I'm handing this review off. While it gets ready to be re-reviewed hopefully the noted issues will be fixed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wizardman asked me to have a look, and I should get to it by the end of the week, if not sooner. The only slight problem is that my computer is having some sort of breakdown, so it may take a day or two longer than I hoped. Definitely by the end of the week, though! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Wizardman for taking on the review initially, as you're not really a cricket guy I hope it wasn't too arduous! I'll be addressing the points raised tonight. And thanks Sarastro for picking up the baton, I'll try to address concerns promptly. Nev1 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Thanks also to Harrias (talk · contribs) and Aaroncrick (talk · contribs) for helping out. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review: Sorry for the delay, my computer is in a much worse state than I imagined! I'm borrowing one right now, so my replies to you may be delayed by a day or two at the moment, but hopefully not. Generally, a very good job collating so much information like this. Reads quite well, too. There are a few issues, but should not be a problem to sort.

Lead:

I think there should be more about his playing career here. Only his captaincy is mentioned and he was already a player of some stature when he was appointed. Generally, I do not think the lead summarises the whole article at the moment.

I've had a go at expanding it, do you think it needs more? Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~ODI is used here and in the main body without any explanation for the non-cricketer.~~

The acronym is now explained. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early years and youth cricket:

"Shakib "was fairly proficient [at cricket] and was often hired to play for different villages"" This quote (which I don't really think is a great way to start the main article) should be attributed to Shuvro in the text.

Good point, done. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"taped cricket ball" may need explaining for the non-cricketer.~~

I've added a wikilink, do you think this is enough. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Details on his family or upbringing?

To be honest, I've not been able to find much on this. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did he do for Islampur? This section mentions his selection for this team and then he is playing U19 cricket, without any real suggestion as to how he got there. ~~It does not help that "Bangladesh Krira Shikkha Protishtan" is a redlink, as I have no idea what this is.~~

Fair point, I've added an explanatory note. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've not been able to find out how Shakib did for Islampur, there doesn't seem to be much out there on it. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Always seems to be the way, unfortunately! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International breakthrough: Generally fine, just two points

Why was he selected at all? Were there any performances to catch the selectors' eyes, or was it just a punt?

Statements released by teams on selection issues sometimes include comments on recent performances that have influenced selection, but it's a bit hit and miss and that doesn't seem to be the case here unfortunately. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly too much detail about the team in this section, which I would be inclined to cut as it should be about Shakib, but I'm not that bothered and it would not stop me passing.

I was thinking about what material I'd remove, but I a inclined to keep it as it is. I think it provides context for Shakib's performances, but if you've got suggestions about particular bits that could be trimmed I'm happy to listen. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough of an issue for a GA; would be an issue if it went further. And I take your point anyway, to be honest. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming Bangladesh's leading all-rounder: Would it be possible to have a catchier title?

Not keen on the title myself, but I'm stuck for an alternative. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be inclined to call it "Leading all-rounder" or "Bangladesh's leading all-rounder". But no big deal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Shakib was considered more of a batsman than a bowler, despite being an all-rounder.": Who considered him to be an all-rounder at this stage? The evidence suggests a batsman who bowled, so it could do with something like "Shakib/the team/the selectors considered him to be an all-rounder".

Hmm, tricky, the source is vague and only says "In Tests he has batted mostly at No. 7, but all along, he was always known as a batting allrounder". Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Seems a bit iffy, but that isn't our problem! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Though he usually batted down the order at number seven in Tests, he had usually batted in the top five in ODIs." usually ... usually~~

I've changed the second "usually" to "mostly"; how do you think that works? Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I'm not a big fan of the two stats tables, but that could just be me. It may be better told in prose.~~

I assume you're talking about the (now three) tables embedded in the main body of the article. They contain statistics at key parts of Shakib's career, so: 1) before New Zealand toured in October 2008, at which point he was considered a "batting all-rounder" 2) the day he was first ranked the number one ODI all-rounder, showing a substantial change in figures between the two dates and 3) his stats that earned him the Wisden award. For me, the tables marked an easy way to highlight what I thought were important figures without bogging down the article with more "scored xyz runs at an average of wx,yz". I've not seen this done anywhere else (well not in article's I've not edited, I've tried something similar to this elsewhere) and thought it was worth the experiment. I'll leave them in for now, but as this could end up having a wider impact on article (when I try to write a GA I look to others to see what has worked) I'll raise the issue at WT:CRIC. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I'll strike the comment for now as it's a personal thing. I don't think one size necessarily fits all, and I've seen cricket FAs with and without these. And my instinct is that they may mean more for modern players rather than former ones, owing to the amount of cricket covered by the stats which would benefit from breaking down. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the issue at WT:CRIC and the opinions were that the experiment wasn't really successful so I've removed the tables. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"scoring 92*": Should be 92 not out.~~

There were a couple more instances in the body of the article where * was used instead of 2not out", this has now been changed. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"as his team again slid to defeat" A touch dramatic?~~

Fair enough, I was trying to find a way to break the monotony of Bangladesh losing! I've changed it per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vice captaincy:

"Shakib was considered as a possible successor by the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB), however the BCB was cautious of over-burdening the all-rounder and decided against the move." This should be two sentences, with the second beginning "however".

Fair enough, I've split the sentence. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"This was achieved against a very inexperienced West Indies side as a result of a dispute between the West Indies Cricket Board and the West Indies Players' Association over pay." Maybe make explicit that the team's inexperience directly followed from the dispute as the players boycotted.

I thought the following sentence made that clear with the first choice players making themselves unavailable for selection, but how about this edit? Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearer now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwe:

~~"before being unfortunately run-out" suggests POV. If, as I suspect, it means he was unlucky in the manner of his dismissal, it should explain how.~~

You're quite right, and I've removed "unfortunately" (in my defence it wasn't me who added it in the first place!) Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England and the Asia Cup:

"Bangladesh returned to England for the ODI half of their tour and although the series 2–1[77] their victory in the second match was the first time Bangladesh had beaten England in international cricket" This does not make sense: and although the series 2-1.

Does this make things clearer?

Yes, although I made a pedantic grammar tweak. Sorry! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"The match against Scotland was abandoned and Bangladesh lost one match to each of Ireland Netherlands" also does not make sense.~~

I'm afraid I don't know what to do here as it makes sense to me. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missing "and" between the teams, fixed it myself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Having signed him in November 2009,[84] Shakib joined up with Worcestershire County Cricket Club" May be better as "Having being signed in..."~~

It's a tricky sentence, but I don't really like the "Having being" phrasing so I've gone for "Having signed a contract in November 2009,[84 Shakib joined up with Worcestershire County Cricket Club]" which uses the active voice. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~"scoring 187 at an average of 37.4": for consistency should be 37.40.~~

Yep, and corrected. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand and Zimbabwe:

~~"Once it emerged that Mortaza would be unable to play in the rest of the series he was made captain for the remaining matches." Presumably it was Shakib who was made captain, not Mortaza.~~

Yep, fixed. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I really don't like record and statistics sections. This part should be cut or integrated into the text, as we aren't CricketArchive. The stats tables here are fine, though.~~

That's fair enough, I am in two minds about them and it doesn't help having to update them regularly. I'm not averse to removing them (the whole chunk in fact), but which parts did you think were fine? Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not a fan, I've no problem with the tables giving his stats, although they are a pain to update. Personally, I think they are too much in any cricket article but have no objections to keeping them. It is the "facts" and Man of match stuff I really think should go. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me, and I've got rid of the stuff. At the James Anderson (cricketer) article I ditched the entire section as an experiment (it's a higher profile article) and to be honest not having the long tables as well as records makes the article feel more... readable I suppose rather than a collection of stats and trivia. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of sourcing reveals no problems. Also, images and stability seem OK.
~~Links on ref 45 and 46 playing up.~~

This edit fixes them. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already on hold, so I don't need to do that, but I don't see any obstacles to passing this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to look good, nearly there. And if any of the above points (such as his early life and career) do not have the info available, I would still pass without a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only remaining issue is with the lead. Anything I've left unstruck is either something I'm not bothered about or is not actionable until more information becomes available. I'll pass as soon as the lead is added to as it looks good now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All done, passing now. Sorry it's taken so long. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I was going to thank you for your patience as I know I've taken my time with this. Thanks for the review, I think the article's improved substantially in the process. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]