Talk:Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003/GA1

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

This will be my first review but it was suggested that people jump in to clear the backlog. I'll try my hardest not to make any new guy mistakes.Cptnono (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Quick fail criteria

 * 1) Has reliable sources Symbol support vote.svg
 * cricinfo (ESPN subsidiary) looks completely reliable. One source needs text and formatting is not consistent but that is easily fixed during the full review.

Passes the quick fail criteria. Cptnono (talk) 08:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Is written neutrally Symbol support vote.svg
 * 2) No valid cleanup tags Symbol support vote.svg
 * 3) Is relatively stable with no edit wars Symbol support vote.svg
 * 4) Not specifically concerned with a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint Symbol support vote.svg

Review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comments

 * Quotes
 * If the cheatsheet found here is correct some of the quotes need inline citations within the sentence. I noticed throughout the Second Test section.
 * In the Second Test section the commas may need to be tinkered with. "played much better than expected," and was a "much faster pitch than that in Darwin," See WP:LQ (Period after Darwin) Cptnono (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on comma after "...than that in Darwin" Does it need to be a period?Cptnono (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Contractions
 * ✅ in the lead
 * ✅ in the First Test section
 * ✅ in the Second Test seciton
 * ✅ in the 2nd ODI subsection of the One Day Series section Cptnono (talk) 09:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilinks
 * ✅Should Australian Football Park be Cazaly Stadium or Bundaberg Rum Stadium be used?Cptnono (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 10:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Citations
 * The First Test section needed an ending ref / and a starting ref tag at http://www.cricinfo.com/australia/content/story/128974.html . Made the edit but wasn't sure if you wanted to name the ref. No I didn't. Edit conflict since you already got it. (talk) 09:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The authors should be mentioned in the sources if available.
 * Doesn't really matter. Most Article don't have this.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 10:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * According to WP:CITE web pages require authors. I was also under the impression that this was a GA requirement but it actually isn't mentioned at GA Criteria. I wouldn't feel right not passing this article because of this. Unless you are against adding the authors based on style, I would be happy to throw them in myself.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, A lot of FA's don't. Have now done in any case.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 12:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅The first source displays Cricinfo italicized while the others do not
 * Errant apostrophe
 * ✅In the lead, "ODI's" does not need the apostrophe per the Manual of Style Cptnono (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * External sources
 * ✅I may not be as familiar with this as you but thought the External sources subsection might be better as an External link.Cptnono (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Images
 * ✅Does the Ricky Ponting image caption require a full stop? The "who" changes this from a full sentence to a caption.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Done  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅This is a really annoying and trivial change. It looks like the "who" makes this a nominal group instead of a sentence. This is mentioned specifically in the caption MOS. So the period or the who need to go. I think removing, who would look better.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A Bangladeshi one could be used if it can fit and if it is available.Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Nothing decent available.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Captions, per MOS:IMAGES information is to be in the text not the captions. The text in the captions gives some good info but might be better as "this is so and so batting" I have seen much worse so maybe the level used is acceptable.
 * Tweaked a little.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 10:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is inline with the guidelines even if not common.Cptnono (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Damien Martyn's image is left aligned under a third level heading. Per MOS mentioned above "Do not place left-aligned images directly below a subsection-level heading (=== or lower), as this sometimes disconnects the heading from the text that follows it. This can often be avoided by shifting left-aligned images down a paragraph or two."Cptnono (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Numbers
 * I am completely neutral on this and am only suggesting it as an alternative. Would it be better to use the players numbers in the squad table instead of in the prose?Cptnono (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's better off left how it is. Per other cricket articles :)  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 07:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perfect. If there is already a precedent who am I to try to change it.Cptnono (talk) 08:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Doing some tweaks and adding info about the background.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 09:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those changes actually made a positive and substantial difference in the way it reads. This might come across weird but I believe "Their performance" (dropping the "s") is more inline with common grammar since "their" takes the place of "the team's". Could be US English only or even incorrect, though. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 10:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅Not sure, but it appears to read better.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 10:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Other
 * ✅Hossain's suspect action is not clear to me. Am I missing something?Cptnono (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added link.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 10:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pass
Nice work Aaroncrick. You have made this article look clean and have added some great information. You have made related articles look under par in comparison (with no offense to other editors intended). I'm sure any minor tweaks or adjustments will only improve it further so I will be passing this article.Cptnono (talk) 12:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)