Talk:2009 Deccan Chargers season/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: TripleRoryFan (talk · contribs) 22:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * Overall I think this article is structured well but the prose could use a fair bit of work.


 * Ok so first with the layout, I actually love the way this article is formatted in general. I think having a paragraph on each match is a very straightforward way to do things, and I think the sections are divided up in a very logical way and flow naturally from one to the other. The tables of information do somewhat interrupt that but I think that's unavoidable in an article like this. The only thing I would change is the lead section, which I think is a bit too short for this article. Maybe it could include some context on how badly the Chargers had done in the previous season or something about the season being played in South Africa instead of India.
 * Added about previous year's performance but I don't think it should be written more since this page is about 2009 season but not 2008 season and I also think there was enough to know about why they played in South Africa. Let me know if you still think it's not enough.


 * Overall I think the prose has three main issues with it. First, I'm not entirely convinced by the way commas are or are not used, but I can't tell whether that's just my personal preference or an actual issue. Second, I think "the" is used too frequently when it shouldn't be. For example, in referring to a hat-trick, maybe it should be written as "a hat-trick" instead of "the hat-trick". Third, I think the word "put" it misused a bit, but I'm not sure if there's some different usage I'm unfamiliar with being used here. The word "put" is used in sentences like "Though they lost the toss and were put to field" where I think other words like "sent out" are more correct.
 * Changed at some places. Let me know if I missed anywhere or if you still feel there's some mistakes in sentence formation.


 * For an example of the commas thing, this is a sentence from the Player Acquisition section: "They started acquiring players as their new coach, Darren Lehmann signed the uncapped Australian all-rounder, Ryan Harris and snapped the local talent by signing the local Hyderabadi batsman, Tirumalasetti Suman along with the Himachal Pradesh wicket-keeper, Manvinder Bisla." I think the commas should be used differently like this: "They started acquiring players as their new coach, Darren Lehmann, signed the uncapped Australian all-rounder Ryan Harris and snapped the [another use of "the" I don't agree with] local talent by signing the local Hyderabadi batsman Tirumalasetti Suman along with the Himachal Pradesh wicket-keeper Manvinder Bisla." I think throughout there are some commas used where they shouldn't be and some not used where they should be, but again I'm not 100% on whether this is about correct usage or personal preference.
 * Changed accordingly, I guess. Let me know if I missed anywhere or if you still feel there's some mistakes in sentence formation.


 * Now I've gone through the article and picked out a few specifics that I think need to be fixed.


 * In background, "On 24 March 2009, Board of Control for Cricket in India announced that the IPL was to be held in the South Africa and had decided to compensate the franchises for the extra expenditure they incur in moving the team from India for this season." I think the tense at the end of this sentence is wrong. Instead it could be "for the extra expenditure they would incur in moving the team from India for the season".
 * Corrected


 * In "Player Acquisition", "The IPL added performance clause to its player's contract which saw the player lose 20% of their match fee if the player don't find a place in starting XI on a match-by-match basis." should maybe become something like "The IPL added a performance clause to its players' contracts which saw a player lose 20% of their match fee if they didn't find a place in their team's starting XI on a match-by-match basis." There definitely needs to be some change at the beginning with "added performance clause" but whether to keep it singular or make it plural about player or players is probably more down to personal preference.
 * Corrected


 * "The Deccan Chargers conducted the probe and later, terminated the contract of the Pakistani all-rounder, Shahid Afridi following the spat between Afridi and then captain, V. V. S. Laxman on the poor first-season performances." I think more information is needed on what the probe entailed and what the spat was, because this sentence doesn't make it very clear and implies it's already been talked about (which it hasn't). I think this paragraph also has a few misplaced commas, but that's less important.
 * Corrected


 * In the IPL group stage section, "Though they lost the toss and were put to field, their opening bowling attack consisting Edwards and R. P. Singh troubled the Knight Riders' top-order batsmen with the new ball removing three quick wickets." should this be "put out to field" or "sent out to field" rather than "put to field"? Also I think "consisting" should be "consisting of".
 * Corrected


 * "Praveen Kumar managed to remove Gibbs after changing the ends" should be "changing ends" instead.
 * Corrected


 * "Gilchrist, however continued his scoring, picking especially on short deliveries as he reached his half century in 31 balls.", "especially picking on short deliveries" might flow better.
 * Corrected


 * "However, the target seemed to be too far the Royal Challengers" should be "too far for the Royal Challengers".
 * Corrected


 * "Singh provided good start to the Chargers in the Mumbai inning" should be "provided a good start".
 * Corrected


 * "Rohit and Suman tried build the Chargers innings" should be "tried to build".
 * Corrected


 * "Smith and Rohit progressed the Chargers towards the target as they put 50-run stand in 21 balls." should this be "put up a stand" or something similar?
 * Corrected


 * "Dhoni introduced Shadab Jakati who removed the both set batsmen and removal of Suman by Muttiah Muralitharan triggered ..." change "the both" to either "both the" or just "both", also "and removal" should be "and the removal".
 * Corrected


 * "Rohit joined by Smith" should be "Rohit was joined by Smith
 * Re-written


 * "Duminy build the partnership with Pinal Shah for the Mumbai" should be "Duminy built a partnership with Pinal Shah for Mumbai".
 * Corrected


 * "But the poor shot selection by the Mumbai batsmen in the end" I think this is trying to say "But there was poor shot selection" but I'm not entirely sure.
 * I think it's correct. Let me know if you still think I need to change.
 * Ok yeah I agree I think I was misreading the sentence as a whole when I went through last time.


 * "The Royasls' collapse began in the second over" Royals' is misspelled.
 * Corrected


 * "Gilchrist won the toss and elected to field for the Chargers as he named unchanged team for this match." should be "named an unchanged team for this match."
 * Corrected


 * "Gilchrist kept the Chargers in the hunt with his knock of 33-ball 64." I think if you're going to use the word "knock" it needs to be phrased as "knock of 64 off 33 balls" or something, otherwise it can be written as "with his 33-ball 64" and the word knock can be omitted entirely.
 * Corrected


 * "Symonds batted smartly mixing sixes with the singles took the Chargers further close to their target." this sentence needs an "and" in it I think.
 * Re-written


 * "Sangakkara build the Kings' innings with Yuvraj" should be "Sangakkara built".
 * Corrected


 * "Gilchrist provided the quick start for the Chargers but Ramesh Powar turned the things as he dismissed Gilchrist and Suman off successive deliveries" I think should be "but Ramesh Powar turned things around"?
 * Corrected


 * "but Gibbs attacked the bowlers as they build 68 runs in 6.5 overs." should be "as they built 68 runs".
 * Corrected


 * In semi-final, "Though Ashish Nehra removed Gibbs on the other end, he continued to attack the bowlers as he completed his half century in 17 balls, fastest in the IPL." should this say "the fastest in the IPL"?
 * Corrected


 * "This also helped the Chargers get qualified to the 2009 Champions League Twenty20 (2009 CLT20)." I think this should be re-written as "This also helped to Chargers to qualify for the 2009 Champions League Twenty20 (2009 CLT20)."
 * Corrected


 * In final, "The Chargers started their bowling aggressively as Singh removed Kallis but van der Merwe attaked" attacked is misspelled.
 * Corrected


 * In the champions league section, "with the Deccan Chargers placed in the Group A along with the Trinidad and Tobago" remove the "the" before Trinidad and Tobago.
 * I think "the" should be present if you see it as either a team name or a country name


 * "On 14 October, the Deccan Chargers lost their second group match against the Trinidad and Tobago (T&T)" again remove the "the", this happens again several times through the paragraph with "the T&T".
 * I think "the" should be present if you see it as either a team name or a country name
 * I disagree but I think this comes down more to preference than anything else so I'm fine with it.


 * "Singh too erred in his line and length as he put a hat-trick of front-foot no-balls" instead of "put" I think it should say "bowled"
 * Corrected


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I think the list of retained, released and added players in the Player acquisition section should have a citation clearly marked even though the moves are all individually cited within the prose. The standings tables are also unreferenced and I think they should be referenced too. Other than that, the references section is good, the sources are reliable as far as I can tell and there doesn't seem to be any evidence of original research or plagiarism.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * I think this article does a good job of covering everything it needs to, and personally I don't find any of it being too detailed.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Basically just one user editing this page and no content disputes.
 * 1) 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):
 * I'm not an expert on image use and stuff but it looks like the images are all tagged, and they've all got captions explaining why they're relevant to the article as well.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall I think this article is very close to being a good article, the only issues I really have with it are the way the prose is written. I think if that can be improved then this can be listed. I'll give it seven days and if it's still a fair way off where I think it should be then I'll fail it, but if it's improved enough I'll pass it.
 * Thanks for picking up the article. I made necessary changes and hopefully there won't be any other issues. Sagavaj (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for making the changes, I've just gone back through to make sure I haven't missed anything and I think it's all good now. I'll give it a pass. Great work on the article. TripleRoryFan (talk) 06:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)