Talk:Shakib Al Hasan/Archive 1

Explanation of recent reverts

 * The following is copied from the talk page of to explain the recent reverts the article has undergone. The reply from Wiki id2 was on the talk page of 

I've undone your edits to the above article as unfortunately they weren't really an improvement and I thought I should explain in more detail than can be managed in a edit summary. Shakib has already played over 100 ODIs, giving that much detail on the New Zealand series – with a match-by-match description of events, including stuff that wasn't even directly related to Shakib's performance – unbalances the article. Either it has to be reduced so it's in proportion, or the same level of detail has to be maintained throughout which will bloat the article beyond a manageable size and what a reader finds interesting. There was also the problem of tone; calling New Zealand's bowling "superb" is an opinion rather. There's nothing wrong with including opinion in an article, but it needs to be made clear whose it is. I understand wanting to make the prose interesting, especially as sports journalism attempts to capture the energy of the game to engage readers, but this is an encyclopedia and we have to stick to verifiable information. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see your point and that there are certain grammatical errors such as "superb" but Al Hasan captained the team and therefore the whole performance has to be mentioned because he is the leader and the captain of the team. Naturally if this is a more notable series for Shakib than it will have more details. It's not like a tour of South Africa by India in 2000 will have more coverage on Sachin Tendulkar's article if his best score is 50*. Naturally the series against South Africa in 2010 when Tendulkar registered a double-century the first to do so in an ODI will recieve more details.
 * The same is here Shakib was a member on this notable tour, he led for the majority of it. Therefore the team performance has to be mentioned because that team's performance is the captains peformance. Thanks for telling me about the grammatical errors though ( Wiki id2  (talk)  06:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC))


 * I don't think you've understood my point. Including opinion such as an innings was "superb" isn't a problem with grammar, it's a problem with tone. An encyclopedia should have a neutral tone and the clearly expresses an opinion. The level of detail you're including is unsustainable and degrading the quality of the article. Of course events should be weighted by their significance, so a man of the match performance is more noteworthy than a quiet match, but you've gone beyond that and are including information that simply isn't relevant. Let's take the example of the information on the New Zealand series which you rewrote:
 * "Bangladesh participated in a five-match series against New Zealand in October 2010. Bangladesh won the first match courtesy of a four-wicket haul by Shakib. However shortly after the match Mortaza was diagnosed with an injury and Shakib was made temporary captain. The second ODI was washed out due to rain. In the third ODI New Zealand were bowled out for 174 and Shahriar Nafees guided the chase by scoring 73. Shakib scored the winning runs. Bangladesh needed to win the fourth ODI to win the series going into the ODI New Zealand won the toss and chose to bowl. Bangladesh struggled early on with Shariar Nafees and Junaid Siddique falling in quick succession however Shakib came to bat and scored 106 runs before being caught and bowled by New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori. The team managed to score 241. New Zealand chase started horribly with Brendan McCullum and Ross Taylor falling early. However Kane Williamson continued to resist and managed to score 108 he found little support with the remainder of the lower order. New Zealand were 232 all out and Bangladesh won by nine runs. This was the first time in cricket history in Bangladesh that the team beat a full-strength test-playing nation in an ODI series. As the previous wins against Zimbabwe and West Indies were against weakened teams. When the fourth ODI was played Bangladesh collapsed to 174 all out courtesy of a superb New Zealand bowling performance, when New Zealand batted they lost two early wickets in Brendan McCullum and Jesse Ryder. New Zealand slipped to 20-5. New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori and Grant Elliott led a resurgence, but, the New Zealand brittle batting order couldn't bear the pressure and the match came down to the wire with Kyle Mills continuing to resist Bangladesh, in the final over being bowled by Rubel Hossain he fired a full toss which went for four, the next ball was a yorker and a dot ball. And the following ball was a yorker which wiped out the leg stump. This became the lowest score Bangladesh had ever defended, New Zealand collapsed to 171 all out. Bangladesh won the five-match series 4-0 winning the first an third match comfortably and fighting hard to win the fourth and fifth match.(the second ODI was washed out due to rain) This became arguably Bangladesh's finest hour in international cricket."


 * In the above there are multiple problems with the level of detail and tone.
 * "Bangladesh won the first match courtesy of a four-wicket haul by Shakib": this implies it was the only performance of significance. The four-wicket haul may have been important, but who says? Teams have lost ODIs even when people have scored centuries or taken five wicket hauls for them.
 * "In the third ODI New Zealand were bowled out for 174 and Shahriar Nafees guided the chase by scoring 73": in what way is Shahriar Nafees' performance relevant to an article on Shakib Al Hasan?
 * "Shakib scored the winning runs": Shakib's a middle order batsmen and has been at the crease on more than one occasion when Bangladesh have won. Are we to include every time he scored the winning runs? Scoring the winning runs isn't necessarily significant. He could have just walked the the crease with a single to get from nine overs and edged it through the slips.
 * "New Zealand won the toss and chose to bowl": again this just isn't important; every match has a toss, why both mentioning this one?
 * "New Zealand chase started horribly": editorialising again and not taking a neutral stance, from Bangladesh's view it might have started ideally.
 * "However Kane Williamson continued to resist and managed to score 108 he found little support with the remainder of the lower order": in an article about Shakib Al Hasan, I'm bewildered why there's so much information on the performances of others; no link is made between Williamson's century and what Shakib did. It does not provide context, it merely distracts when done like this.
 * "174 all out courtesy of a superb New Zealand bowling performance": it's interesting that even though you said you recognised some of the tone was poor (well, you misunderstood my point about tone to mean grammar) you failed to change this example I picked out.
 * "when New Zealand batted they lost two early wickets in Brendan McCullum and Jesse Ryder": again there's the problem of how does this related to Shakib. This level of information belongs in an article about the series, not one player. If you could clean up the tone of the prose, I'd seriously recommend you put this kind of stuff in New Zealand cricket team in Bangladesh in 2010–11 rather than here.
 * "New Zealand brittle batting order couldn't bear the pressure and the match came down to the wire with Kyle Mills continuing to resist Bangladesh, in the final over being bowled by Rubel Hossain he fired a full toss which went for four, the next ball was a yorker and a dot ball": no mention of Shakib, and describing New Zealand's batting as brittle is a judgement call Wikipedia editors should not be making. Who described them as brittle? A pundit or former cricketer commenting on the state of New Zealand's batting in the series would be the kind of detail that does improve the article if it could be found.
 * "winning the first an third match comfortably and fighting hard to win the fourth and fifth match": why repeat what's already been said in the rest of the article? (Never mind the problem with who said whether the wins were comfortable or difficult.)
 * "This became arguably Bangladesh's finest hour in international cricket": who argued this? Unless that opinion is attributed to someone, it does not belong in an encyclopedia article.


 * What you replaced (shown below) was an effort to keep out the unimportant detail that bloated the article after your edit. It mentions Shakib's significant performances, the century and the four wicket haul for example, while providing context that it was the team's first win against a full strength ICC Full Member nation and that Shakib finished with most runs and wickets for either side.
 * "In October 2010, New Zealand went to Bangladesh for five ODIs. In the first match of the series Mortaza injured his ankle and was forced to leave the field; Shakib took over, and under his leadership Bangladesh secured a nine-run victory, with Shakib himself taking four wickets and scoring 58. Once it emerged that Mortaza would be unable to play in the rest of the series he was made captain for the remaining matches.[89] In the fourth match Shakib scored a century and took three wickets to help his team win nine runs.[90] Bangladesh went on to win the series 4–0,[91] their first series victory against a full strength ICC Full Member nation.[90] Shakib finished the series as the player with most runs and wickets on either side: 213 runs[92] and 11 wickets.[93]"


 * You also need to work on your referencing. In the above example you ditched several inline citations and referenced all your new material to two pages which simply didn't cover everything. In this edit you include only one reference; that's not a problem as long as all the information provided is in the link but that's not the case. Where in that article does it say the fourth ODI was rained off? In this edit the end of the paragraph under the section you renamed series against Zimbabwe (2010) is unreferenced. Per WP:V that information can be removed if challenged. It's standard practise on Wikipedia to provide references every time you add material to an article. As you've managed to use them elsewhere you are clearly aware of this, so it's really not acceptable to be sloppy in this way. With this poor referencing, editorialising seems to have crept in. You added "He criticsed the fact that he had been given a side that he didn't want and that he wasn't happy with some of the top order that was selected for the series referring to the selection of Mohammad Ashraful" which is completely unsubstantiated. Where exactly does Shakib refer to the selection of Ashraful? Finally, when you add referenced information to an article, could you please ensure it's formatted in the same manner as the rest of the article. Having references with different formats is untidy and goes against the manual of style. I'll post a copy of this onto the talk page to demonstrate that I've made an effort to solve this problem. Given the problems listed above, I have reverted your edits and ask you to please not reinstate them. Nev1 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Undoing the split
I fail to understand why Nev1 would undo a split of articles into sections, citing "this article is chronological and not thematic", when I had split the World Cup 2011 section from the NZ series section, since THE WORLD CUP TOOK PLACE AFTER THE NZ SERIES!

I understand the problem with the "Domestic career" thing, but you really should've paid more attention with the entire edit before undoing it.

I'm redoing the split (without the Domestic career section, I buy your argument on that) manually again. Ratibgreat (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm glad the domestic and international stuff remains integrated as that maintains the chronological order, but I'm not sold on the need for separate sections for the World Cup and afterwards. There's just 119 words on the World Cup, which doesn't seem enough to warrant a stand-alone section, and likewise there's two short sentences on what happened afterwards. I don't thing this kind of division is necessary. Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * For the simple reason that the World Cup and the NZ series are two separate events. For the same reason as you don't put 2011 events under 2010 no matter how banal and less the 2011 events are. Chronology, my friend, is maintained only when we acknowledge the phases. Now if you want to call the NZ section as 2011, maybe we solve this problem. But the World Cup and the NZ series are two separate events (just like attending 4th grade and 5th grade) and cannot be under the heading NZ series. Ratibgreat (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That much is obvious, I didn't dispute that I'm just concerned about creating too many subsections, more than is useful. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Earning Of Shakib Al Hasan
Hello,Do Anyone here know what is the Earning of Shakib Al Hasan? It hasn't been updated since forever. He plays in all types of leagues like IPL,BPL,CPL,SLPL,County,Big Bash and so. BCB pays him a decent amount of salary. Recently, he has started a Restaurant business adding up with his previous cosmetic shop and event management business. Also a massive amount of his earning comes from endorsements and also TV appearances. Minor things like YouTube channel earning,Website earning and event appearance earning must also be calculated.

Cricketers earning is an important thing that people might want to see. There has been a decent amount of searches in 'Google' about it. So,I think the WikiPedia team should find out something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan10s (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's somewhere around BDT4,25,000 Pmohd (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Information
Shakib is the most talented player in the world. Last march vs Afghanistan he taken four wicket & top scorer in bangladeshi batsman. Mahmudul Hasan Mithon (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)