Talk:Ricky Ponting/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 19:56, 21 March 2012 (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): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:

On the whole, this is a pretty good article. That said, I think that it is a pretty fair distance from being a Good article. Before going too deep into the article, there are some significant sourcing issues. A number of paragraphs are completely unreferenced, such as the Sponsorship section, the first paragraph of the Appointment as One Day International captain, the second and third paragraphs of the 2002–03 Ashes victory and first World Cup success as captain section, and a number of others. There are also plenty of other instances in which claims made within otherwise referenced paragraphs have no direct inline citation, leaving ambiguity as to whether the statement has come as a result of original research.

The article is very long, I would suggest overly so, partially as a result of too much detail on parts of Ponting's career, and partially due to inclusion of irrelevant information (it isn't really necessary in an article about Ponting to state that "Australia continued their run in South Africa even in the absence of McGrath for family reasons." I think a key to improving this article will be to distinguish between Australia and Ricky Ponting. I appreciate that the results of the Australian team while Ponting was captain is relevant to Ponting, but a blow by blow account of the fares of Australia during his time as captain is not. No mention is made in the article of Ponting even having played domestic cricket for Somerset or IPL cricket for Kolkata, something that certainly does need adding, even if just in passing. The difference in length between Second Ashes series loss as captain and 2010–11 Ashes defeat is striking, and is typical of the varying issues with detail and focus seen in the article.

I certainly think that this article has potential for Good status, but I don't think that it can be improved in time to pass this review. As a result, I am failing the article, but inviting you to take it to a peer review, where myself and other editors will be happy to help you work on the article.  Harrias  talk 19:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC)