Talk:Anil Kumble/GA1

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

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article is some way off GA status. It seems a lot of good work has been done, but I think much more is required. It may be worth looking at some other cricket GAs or FAs to understand what is required to reach GA status. But with so much work having been done, I think GA is a realistic goal in the near future.

I looked closely at the first sections, and found several prose and referencing issues. "He is currently…": Needs a date, as per WP:DATED; i.e. "As of 2012…"
 * "He is also the first and the only cricketer in the history of Indian Test Cricket to have taken a 10-wicket haul.": Could be cut back to "He is the only Indian Test cricketer to have…"
 * "Since his debut in international cricket on 25 April 1990, he has taken 619 Test wickets[3] and 337 ODI wickets": Present tense suggests that he is still playing; he is not going to add to his tally.
 * Way too much emphasis on captaincy in the lead, and nothing on the rest of his playing career. The lead also needs more on his technique and successes. Also, his 10-wicket achievement is mentioned twice.
 * "He is the second highest wicket taker among leg spinners in Test cricket, other being Shane Warne of Australia": Given that he is the 3rd overall highest, this seems unnecessarily specific. I think it should be cut.
 * "His family, takes its name from the Kumbla village, located in the Kasaragod district of Kerala." No need for the comma, and this is lifted directly from the source. May be an issue regarding WP:COPYVIO or Close paraphrasing.
 * His wife's full name is not given in the stated ref.
 * I can not find the name of his daughter in the given refs.
 * "Kumble did his primary schooling at Holy Saint English School and his high schooling at National High School": Better as "Kumble's primary school was Holy Saint English School and he later attended National High School"
 * Ref 21 gives me nothing.
 * "went on to have scintillating but short-lived first class careers": POV

I did not read the rest as closely, but the main issue seems to be broad coverage.
 * The remainder of the article does not seem to fully cover his career. Without reading too closely, I notice that there is a lot of missing information. Just a few examples:
 * Jumps from fc debut, to U19 debut, to ODI debut then Test debut in 4 sentences. It needs more on his early performances. How many wickets did he take? What were his best performances? Which ones earned him national selection. How did he do on his tours? What did critics and team-mates make of his performances. Was he expected to do well?
 * How did he perform in his early Tests. As I recall, he was not expected to be all that good, but after his South African success, his real breakthrough was when he massacred England in 92-93. How was he successful? (Mention that topspinner!) What about the '92 World Cup? (Did he play?) Again, what did critics make of his performances? (I seem to remember that Keith Fletcher, the England manager, dismissed him before the 92-93 series. What about other performances than his 6-12 against WI?
 * Nothing given between 93 and 96; what about his season in County Cricket in '95 when he was incredibly successful for Northamptonshire in not very helpful conditions?
 * Far more on the '96 World Cup than any other part of his career; he was not even one of the star performers, so why so much detail. Then, nothing on one of his few relative failures in England in '96.
 * The rest of his career is covered in six paragraphs! This is nothing close to enough, and there is more on his century than some of his best bowling performances. Also, too much on his records. What about his everyday performances. Some that stand out from memory: success in Australia in 2003-04 and 2007-08. Bowling against WI with a broken jaw. What about his record year by year (ie. how many wickets in each season, how this compared to other players)
 * Relative to the rest of his career, the IPL is not a huge part; yet it is given more coverage than any other aspect even though it only covered three years of a 20 year career.
 * More on his technique. Some of it is covered, but too much in comparison to other bowlers: it should describe him on his own merits. Pace, accuracy, that top-spinner and flipper. Then mention how he compared to other contemporary leg-spinners like Warne, Mushtaq Ahmed and even Paul Strang! And don't just rely on quotes, paraphrase and use more sources.

Consequently, I'm afraid I must fail this article. Here is the formal review:
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed.--Sarastro1 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose needs a lot of work. I have listed several issue above but noticed several more in the remainder of the article. I recommend a thorough copy-edit by an uninvolved editor.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A few issues with sources not supporting the text, and at least one issue with copyvio/close paraphrasing. This must be checked very carefully before and during a future nomination.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Too much IPL, not enough on the rest of his career. Concerns outlined above. This is my major issue, there is just not enough coverage of his career. Too much is either left out or covered in one sentence; but then, too much on single issues like 10 wicket game, IPL and Test century in comparison to his overall career. He was not a one-trick pony.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * One minor issue identified, but this needs checking more closely throughout the article. Nothing obvious on first glance.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * No problems
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm afraid there is some way to go, and too much to do in the timespan of a GA review.
 * I'm afraid there is some way to go, and too much to do in the timespan of a GA review.