Talk:Shane Warne/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Boca Jóvenes (talk · contribs) 16:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this, though it will take several days as the coverage is very broad. BoJó | talk UTC 16:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it doesn't need much time after all because it is an immediate WP:GAFAIL, as it was in its first review earlier this year. The main problem last time was the prose, especially in the lead, but this time it is the coverage. There is only one mention of Warne's career with Victoria and little more about his time with Hampshire. Also, the sentence about Victoria is incorrect because it was a first-class match in which Victoria played Western Australia – it was not a match involving Victoria Bushrangers and a team called W. Another error is in the best performances table where it reads that he took 6/42 for Surrey v Hampshire. The whole article needs to be combed to omit errors like these.

While there is too little about Victoria and Hampshire, there is far too much in sections 9 to 13 which contain no less than a third of the total content. The reader who comes to this article is looking for coverage of his cricket career, not trivia about Kath & Kim, or Messages On Hold or Liz Hurley. The tribute and memorial sub-sections are WP:UNDUE and, in part, amount to name-dropping of so-called "celebs". You would do well to consider Don Bradman#Later years and death which has about 290 words and includes everything that needs to be said about his death, memorial service and eulogies.

There is one strong prose criticism which is the number of short, often single-sentence, paragraphs. Also, some of the sentences need sense-checking. "During the county season, reports Warne had repeatedly sent lewd SMS messages to an English nurse emerged" should say "reports emerged that" or "there were reports that". The lead is okay, however, and there are no problems with POV or WP:OR. I haven't checked the sources thoroughly but they seem okay at face value. There are plenty of appropriate images and I'm not aware of any problems there. The article is stable as regards no edit warring although I see there are vandalism problems and it might be advisable to request protection.

To summarise, I am failing the review immediately because, per GAFAIL #1, the article "is a long way from meeting one of the six good article criteria". In this case, it is a long way short of GACR#3 in that fails both 3a and 3b. The changes needed to resolve this issue do not justify placing the article on hold. BoJó | talk UTC 21:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to reviewer. I believe you are correct, sections 9 through to 13 are WP:UNDUE. After Warne's death a lot of content was added that understandably falls under WP:MEMORIAL. I will begin to trim and remove it. Desertarun (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Desertarun. That's fine. I'll watch the article and see if I can help, time allowing. Will be glad to review it again when it is ready. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 12:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boca Jóvenes, thanks for that. Desertarun (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boca Jóvenes. I've fixed everything mentioned in the GA assessment except discussion of his domestic career. I couldn't find a source to summarise his time at Hampshire and Victoria. I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket to see if someone can point me in the right direction or if you can think of anything let me know. Regards, Desertarun (talk) 08:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]