Talk:Shikhar Dhawan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs) 12:12, 29 September 2013 (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, no copyvios, 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):
 * 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:

The article suffers from major prose issues; "Shikhar Dhawan for India in the.." is not a good start! The manual of style on appropriate use of sections is not adhered to. The referencing throughout the article is extremely shoddy. Most of the article is completely unreferenced, which gives no indication of whether the article is based on original research, while those references that are provided are inconsistent and incomplete. The article goes into too much detail on certain aspects of his career, and certain innings, while completely missing out vast chunks of his life. Phrases such as "He readily fought the bowlers who underestimated him and started getting big scores eventually, grabbing the attention of the selectors." suggest a lack of a neutral point of view. The only image in the article is dubiously licensed, and probably a copyvio. About all that this article does have going for it is that it is not subject to edit wars! All in all, this article is barely more than a stub, and is certainly not anywhere near Good article status.  Harrias  talk 12:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)