Talk:Virat Kohli/GA1

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

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 05:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The article is way behind the GA material and is a Quick fail.

General

 * "Kohli stood out, scoring his first Test hundred in Adelaide. Virat Kohli is currently regarded as one of India's potential number three batman in Tests, after the retirement of Rahul Dravid following the Australian tour". Statements like these violate WP:NPOV
 * The section Indian Premier League just defines each season like a string of points
 * What's the need to have another section like "ODI Carrer (2012-Present)" after Tests. You've already split both the formats.

Unsourced statements

 * He was bought for $30,000 before the first season in 2008. He did not perform well, scoring only 165 runs in 13 innings at an average of 15 and taking only 2 wickets with his bowling.
 * The third para in "Youth cricket and early career" contains just a single source. Same with the next two seasons
 * Section header "ODI specialist (2008–2011)" reads like a POV statement and except for the first line rest of the text is unsourced
 * His second test hundred is unsourced

Sourcing

 * Ref #12 is dead
 * Although the article uses reliable sources, the ref formatting is extremely poor; very few are properly formatted. Some are just bare URLs and many are incomplete and improperly formatted
 * What makes "cricketnext.in.com" a reliable source
 * Ref #14 uses WP itself as a source

Prose

 * The quality of prose is not upto the level and needs good copyediting. There are several MOS issues in section headers like "Batting Career Summary", "CB Series 2012" and "ODI Carrer" which includes a typo as well. Section headers shouldn't be wikilinked
 * "Records & Achievements" is a mere WP:TRIVIA
 * "Batting Career Summary" is useless; instead useful data like "Man of the Match" and "Man of the Series" can be included
 * One liners like "Kohli made 212 runs in two test matches including one Century and two half Century with Average of 106" should be avoided

Check against the criteria

 * 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:


 * I'm quick failing this article as this stands nowhere near GA standards. This needs proper reorganizing/re-structuring, expansion with adequate citations. Please read the criteria and work before re-nominating. &mdash; Vensatry (Ping me)  05:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)