Talk:2018 Pakistan Super League

2018 Pakistan Super League was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 25, 2016	Articles for deletion	Deleted
March 25, 2019	Good article nominee	Not listed
September 2, 2020	Good article nominee	Not listed

Current status: Former good article nominee

Cricket Low‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Cricket To-do list:

Article assessment

Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details

Verifiability

Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards

Cleanup

There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)

Infoboxes

Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes

Cricket people

Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players
Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list
Check the listing of key bios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class.
Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket.
Create articles for redlinks present here and here

Cricket teams & countries

Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe;
Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams
Create articles about cricket in these missing countries
Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles
Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI

Images

Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people
Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here

On this day in cricket

Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries

Umpires

Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel

Women

Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours

Update

A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains
Regularly updating cricketers' career stats.

Other

Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

Pakistan: Karachi Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Karachi, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Pakistan Super League Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan Super League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the Pakistan Super League on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Template Usage Join Today! Project Talk Tasks Pakistan Super LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan Super LeagueTemplate:WikiProject Pakistan Super LeaguePakistan Super League articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Punjab Low‑importance

	Punjab portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Punjab, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Punjab on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PunjabWikipedia:WikiProject PunjabTemplate:WikiProject PunjabPunjab-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Arab Emirates: Dubai / Sharjah Low‑importance

	United Arab Emirates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Arab Emirates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Arab Emirates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United Arab EmiratesWikipedia:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesTemplate:WikiProject United Arab EmiratesUnited Arab Emirates articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Dubai.
	This article is supported by the Sharjah work group.

GA Review[edit]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 Pakistan Super League/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Matt294069 (talk · contribs) 11:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

If I am going to be honest there this is is a instant fail in my eyes as it fails rule 3 as there is no broad coverage of what happened throughout the tournament. Not only that but there is still tags in the article that needs to be address before this article can be up to scratch. I will see if anyone else sees my thought but this won't be GA right now.

If you want to know what a Good Article that is similar to this, check out the 2016 Women's Cricket Super League article as that might see what you need to add to get it to GA. Not Homura (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree completely, there is no mention of any of the matches / teams other than a couple of lines in the lead about the final which is not mentioned anywhere else. It is just a collection of match templates with no prose to explain them. Spike 'em (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you guys, I very much appreciate all your feedback. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review[edit]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 Pakistan Super League/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 02:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

I will be reviewing this article. HawkAussie (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just from browsing this article, I can see some massive faults in the Manual of Style as their are barely any commas to just take a break and instead just so many full stops. What this needs is a copyedit of the article just so that it is presentable and at least has potential to go for an Good Article because in this state it not even close. Another issue is the lack of consistently on the references as I counted and there was five different ways that you have put ESPN Cricinfo throughout the entire article. Also what about finding references that isn't related to the Cricinfo, like I assume their were references in Pakistan newspapers about this tournament.

All in all, it's not close to being an Good Article and if I was you, I would probably remove the other nominations and try and get one over the line before putting the next one down. HawkAussie (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie: Thanks for the comments. I've already started correcting the ways I have put Cricinfo and tried to add a few different sources. But about the sources can you tell me which ones are unreliable and where I have not added a source resulting in the fail on original research. Finally how can I improve the article being broad in its coverage as I think it has a paragraph for every week of the tournament and a paragraph for each game in the knockout stages. Thanks once again for the feedback and I'm sorry if I am being a bit overeager and annoying CreativeNorth (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CreativeNorth: For me it's just about focusing on sources outside of cricinfo because it mainly goes down to be too many sources that relate back to Cricinfo and not enough to other sources (like the Pakistan newspapers) which is my main worry. HawkAussie (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie: OK I have gone through the article and replaced 31 Cricinfo sources, replacing them with sources mostly from Pakistani newspapers. Is the article OK source wise now and do I need to just copyedit it. Thanks CreativeNorth (talk) 12:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HawkAussie: I've took your feedback and tried to apply it with the sources and the copyediting, however I've probably done something wrong so if you have the time, can you have a look through the article and notify me of any mistakes or worries about the article? Sorry once again, thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 10:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CreativeNorth: Look just sent over to WP:GOCE just so it will be more professional look. Also yes it is good with the sources. Until that is done and gone through the GOCE process, I will close this review now. HawkAussie (talk) 11:01, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.