Talk:2018 Asia Cup final/GA1

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

Reviewer: TripleRoryFan (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

This is my first GA review, I've tried to be comprehensive with where I think the article does or does not meet the GA criteria.


 * 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):
 * Only minor things with the lead section: should it specify that this is a men's cricket tournament? That's not something I'm sure on and I wouldn't fail this either way but I was just wondering whether it would be useful clarification. Also I feel like the article has a lot of content about the earlier stages of the tournament and how India and Bangladesh qualified, but the lead doesn't make any mention of how they qualified. I think it should at least mention that they qualified by finishing as the top two teams in the Super Four stage even if it mentions nothing else about the qualification. Other than that, a good, concise lead section.


 * In Background section, "The 2018 Asia Cup started on 15 September 2018 and was hosted by United Arab Emirates across 2 venues." should this read "by the United Arab Emirates"?


 * Also in Background, "Initially, the team that finishes second in Group A" should this be finished instead of finishes?


 * In India's Road to the Final, "On 19 September 2018, India faced rivals Pakistan and followed the close match against Hong Kong to with a much improved bowling performance and registered their most comfortable chase against Pakistan, winning with 126 balls remaining." I don't think the "to" should be in there. I also think this sentence feels a bit clunky with two "and"s in it, it could almost be split into two sentences.


 * "Sharma, the Indian skipper, scored his 19th ODI century, while Dhawan scored his 15th and their partnership of 210 was India's highest while batting second against Pakistan and in their highest for the first wicket in Asia Cup history." this sentence feels like a run-on sentence, and I think it should be split into a couple of different sentences if all the information has to stay in the article at all.


 * India's Road to the Final section is one long paragraph that might be better served it was split into two paragraphs, one about the group stage and one about the Super Four stage, but if it's trimmed down it would work well. The Bangladesh paragraph is much shorter so that's not really a problem.


 * Bangladesh's Road to the Final: "In the next match they were bowled out for just 119 runs to suffer 136 run defeat to Afghanistan," should be "a 136-run defeat" I think.


 * The Venue section is just one sentence. Not necessarily important that it's short, but it could do with more information, such as the capacity of the ground, whether the ground has hosted an Asia Cup final before, etc. Right now it feels like it lacks any context.


 * "Their opening stand of 120 was Bangladesh's highest since 31 December 2016, when Imrul Kayes and Tamim Iqbal put on 102 runs against New Zealand." this sentence is factually incorrect. "Highest since" implies that the previous one mentioned is higher, but 102 is less than 120. The source shows that the last time they had an opening stand that high was a 147-run stand in 2015, which is what should be written here.


 * I'm not sure why "Match officials and result" are put together in one section. Information about the toss could be included at the start of the match section, the man-of-the match at the end and the result is already mentioned numerous other times so I don't think it needs to be mentioned again here. If there's no other relevant information about the umpires then having them in a list like this is fine, but if there's more information about them relevant to the match I think it should be in a paragraph of prose.


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * I know most of the information in the match descriptions in the "Road to the final" section are all easily accessible through the match scorecards, but details like "Shikhar Dhawan's 14th ODI century". I also can't find a reference that confirms it was Bangladesh's first win against Pakistan in the Asia Cup. In the Match section I couldn't see in the reference where it said it was Mehidi Hasan's first time opening in an ODI. The references themselves are difficult to use as it's not always obvious which source is meant to have the information for the relevant sentence and the "titles" are mostly misleading because they're not actually the titles of the articles and contain many spelling errors like "Bangladesh pull of their biggest ODI wan away from home". I couldn't find anywhere in the source titled "Bangladesh First ever against Pakistan in Asia Cup" any mention of the fact it was their first win against Pakistan in an Asia Cup. This could be original research unless it's mentioned somewhere in a reliable source, in which case there should be a citation.


 * Other than that, the format of the references is generally fine and as far as I can tell they're all linked to reliable sources, with the exception of one dead link I found in the "India in super four" ref from MSN. There's nothing else smelling of original research except the sentence "Pakistan had shown a lack of experience of batting through 50-over innings by attempting big shots every time they were tied down." followed by a citation needed tag, and that's something that can just be taken out of the article. I believe the sentences "On 23 September, Bangladesh beat Afghanistan by 3 runs in their second Super Four match and kept their chances of qualifying for the finals in their own hands. Chasing 250 to win, Afghanistan needed 8 runs off the last over, but Mustafizur Rahman restricted them to just 4 to help his team win." in Bangladesh's Road to the final could be copy-pasted from one of the sources, but that's the only thing that stood out when I checked for plagiarism.


 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * This article addresses all of the main areas of interest of the topic, but I think it goes into too much detail on each team's road to the final. A lot of this information would be a better fit in the main article for the tournament at 2018 Asia Cup, particularly the details about it being particular players' 14th or 15th ODI century. The Bangladesh section does a good job of summarizing the match results and how they impacted Bangladesh's chances of making the final, but the India section goes into more detail on statistics that are irrelevant. I think the India section should be cut down and written more in line with the Bangladesh section.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * NPOV and no editorial bias.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I'm not quite sure what the right call is here. This article was stable for a long time before the GA nomination, but since then it's had a lot of big changes made to it. It hasn't had any changes in a week so it's probably stable enough but there appears to be a bit of a content dispute at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket about the table in the "Road to the final" section and I'm not sure if that was resolved. I agree with the sentiment there that it's hard to follow and the colour isn't all that useful. I think a better format for the table should be found, and if it can't be then it should be taken out and the prose should stand on its own or with completely different tables/charts.
 * 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):
 * No images, audio or video in the article so not relevant.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall I think there are still a lot of problems that need to be addressed in this article before it can be listed. There's information that's probably out of the scope of the article, which isn't really well defined in the lead section, and a lot of it is poorly sourced. The references are all to reliable sources, but the way they're cited isn't useful or correct in all cases. I think that the table in the "Road to the final" section is confusing and it takes a bit of time to figure out what it all means. Overall, a lot of work still needs to be done before this can be considered a GA. I'm not putting this on hold because I don't believe all of these issues are things that can be sorted out quickly.