Talk:India national cricket team/GA1

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

Reviewer: Joseph2302 (talk · contribs) 14:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I will undertake this review, will look at it later today or tomorrow. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank You. Please tell me about any corrections or shortcomings in the article. Kpddg  (talk)  16:18, 5 January 2022 (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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Lead

 * Appropriate length according to MOS:LEAD
 * "The India men's national cricket team, also known as Team India or the Men in Blue,[10] represents India in men's International Cricket." - international cricket, not International Cricket
 * "The Indian cricket team has rivalries with other Test-playing nations, most notably with Pakistan, the political arch-rival of India and with Australia. However, in recent times, rivalries with South Africa and with England have also gained prominence."- unsourced, and not sourced anywhere in the body of the article. Not convinced these are actually rivalries, rather just trophies for matches between the two sides

History

 * There is too much detail on recent history (since 2000). The size of the section on early history is appropriate, the sections on matches in the 21st century are overly detailed
 * Many sections of the history are woefully undersourced. Particularly the sections from 1970 onwards

Governing body

 * Couple of citation needed tags

Sponsorship

 * Table is unsourced, and is it really needed? Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, so don't see why we need all the affiliated sponsors for the team
 * "Star India and Airtel have been title sponsors previously."- unsourced

International grounds

 * "India has now the world's largest cricket stadium."- unsourced
 * "Eden Gardens in Kolkata has hosted the most Tests, and also has the second-largest seating capacity of any cricket stadium in the world, being capable of holding more than 1,10,000 spectators"- need source for 110,000, as the source used has capacity listed as 66,000. Also needs a source for second largest in the world
 * "Wankhede Stadium, established in 1974, has a capacity to hold 33,000 spectators and is currently the most popular venue in the city" - "most popular venue" seems like peacock terminology to me, how would you classify the most popular cricket venue?
 * The "list of venues" table says it was last updated in 2018. Can this be updated for matches since then?
 * Former stadiums section of table is missing a number of references for grounds

Captains

 * Multiple unsourced sections/paragraphs

Squad

 * The grades should be explained in the key above the table, rather than below the table
 * The sources for the squad just list the players and their grades, all the other information (teams they play for, last Test, ODI, T20I appearances appear to be WP:OR). There's also 47 players listed in the squad,
 * Match fees are unsourced
 * The headers "Key" and "Match fees" violate MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, as they're not proper headings

Coaching staff

 * Unsourced section
 * Orange text on blue background violates MOS:CONTRAST, as contrast is only 4.35, and needs to be 4.5.

Selection committee

 * Duplicates section "Selection committee" in the "Governing body" section
 * Again, orange text on blue background violates MOS:CONTRAST, as contrast is only 4.35, and needs to be 4.5.

Tournament history

 * Cricket World Cup- some tournament results not sourced. And as 2031 tournament schedule/qualifying has not been released, seems like original research to assume that India have qualified for that tournament
 * ICC Champions Trophy - some tournament results not sourced. And as 2029 tournament schedule/qualifying has not been released, seems like original research to assume that India have qualified for that tournament
 * ACC Asia Cup - most tournament results unsourced
 * Other tournaments - do we really need these? I've never even heard of World Championship of Cricket or Austral-Asia Cup (the Austral-Asia Cup results are also unsourced)

Honours

 * Unsourced section

Individual records

 * Section is severely lacking in sources, whole paragraphs/sections of unsourced content

Statistics

 * Looks okay

Fan following

 * First section is unsourced

Referencing

 * The references in the article look okay. Fine to use ESPNcricinfo for verifying all the stats. Main problem is there is way too much unsourced content, which immediately fails point 2 of the WP:Good article criteria

Images

 * File:BCCI Crest.svg - seems like it may be an invalid fair use, as the BCCI logo should probably only be used on BCCI article
 * File:Probir Sen with Queen Elizabeth II.png - uploader claims to be the person who took it, but unlikely as it's from 1952. May or may not be in the public domain now, but should be tagged appropriately
 * Licencing for other images look okay

Overall

 * Overall, the level of sourcing is vastly insufficient. This article will require a lot of work to fix these issues, and right now it is nowhere near being the standard of a good article. It clearly fails criteria 2 of the WP:Good article criteria, as there's too much unsourced content/original research. There are currently 32 citation needed tags, and multiple unsourced or undersourced sections. If these issues are fixed at some point in the future, feel free to re-nominate this article then. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)