Talk:Chennai Super Kings/GA3

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

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 22:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC) I will take up the review of the page. Comments in a bit.Ssriram mt (talk)

Comments

 * quite some unreferenced portions in the article - "Chennai Super Kings has been the most controversial team in IPL", jersey colour section, By venue and awards/achievements.
 * references are provided as mere links for some refs - a uniform formatting style can remove dup references as well - check   CITE
 * quite some MOS - there are bolds in some portion and needs general copy-edit in most sections.
 * coverage - it is not broad. Actor vijay, Nayanthara were brand ambassadors, Dhoni being VP of Indian cements, sponsors, team popularity, rivalries - refer Manchester United F.C..
 * lot of irrelevant/peacock statements - "historic M. A. Chidambaram Stadium", "have an excellent record", "most controversial team".
 * some of the stats/figures need year (as of). Terms like "currently" needs to be removed.

Considering above and the coverage, i am failing this article.Ssriram mt (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * References issue is fixed now. I suggest you have a look at this article - Ottawa Senators. I rewrote the CSK article along the lines of the Senators article, which is a good article. Regarding rivalries, CSK does not have any, since IPL is a competition that started only five years ago. The same reason holds good for team popularity too - the league is not old enough to start talking about team popularity. Regarding brand ambassadors, I personally think it would fail the GA criterion 3b. The article is regarding a cricket team and addition of such unimportant details would only increase the off-field coverage. Sponsor details have been added. Don't see how "historic M. A. Chidambaram Stadium" is irrelevant. MAC Stadium is historic. It is the oldest stadium to be in continuous use in the entire country. I have removed the word "excellent", so hope that helps. About "most controversial team", my bad someone added that statement after I nominated the article for GA review. The statement has now been removed. The bolded texts have been removed as well. "currently" is a widely-used term in sports. The Senators article, too, uses the word quite often. Any feedback would be appreciated. Dee  03  13:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * League competition is different from a puristic sports competition - so i dont believe it is a "cricket" article. Even in the Senators article, a big section on team identity covers entertainment/media aspects. Brand popularity, sponsors and ambassadors are primary part of any league. "Current" is about time - a caveat would be better, you can check in the same article. I havent checked the references individually - if you are done with all that(which i felt takes time) and other missing portions, you can it further. All the best.Ssriram mt (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)