Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harbhajan Singh/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by User:Marskell 15:27, 1 June 2008.

Harbhajan Singh

 * ''Wikiprojects listed on the talk page have been notified.

The article seems to have a lot of problems. The major problems are linguistic and POV related. Here are a few examples:

Grammatical problems: These are just a few examples, a thorough review/copyedit is needed to clean-up all problems like these.
 * Harbhajan was born into a middle class Punjabi family, the only son of businessman Sardar Sardev Singh, who owned a ball bearing and valve factory.
 * Arora credits Harbhajan's success to a work ethic that included a three hour training session in the morning, followed by another in the afternoon lasting from 3pm until after sunset, using the headlights of a parked scooter to provide light.
 * Harbhajan was struck by the police, cutting his bowling arm and injuring his elbow.
 * Despite many bowlers having superior domestic performances, Harbhajan was selected to make his Test debut in the Third Test against Australia in Bangalore, where he recorded the modest match figures of 2/136.
 * Harbhajan was then omitted from the team during a home triangular ODI tournament against Bangladesh and Kenya, but was recalled for the Singer Trophy in Sri Lanka, claiming eight wickets at an average of 24.1
 * Harbhajan received a ban of three Test matches after a Level 3 charge of racially abusing Australian cricketer Andrew Symonds calling him a "big monkey" whilst he was batting during the third day of the Second Test at the Sydney Cricket Ground, was upheld by the match referee Mike Procter.

Style issues:
 * Use of editorial adverbs like "Somewhat ironically", "Harbhajan quickly issued and apology", "seemingly out of favour with selectors", "Perhaps fittingly", "His performance improved markedly" etc. should be avoided.
 * Image captions should help read the image in the context of the article. One of the image used has a single word caption "Sreesanth".

POV / OR issues:
 * The article begins with a claim that the subject is "one of the world's most successful off spin bowlers." Neither is this claim directly referenced, nor is it supported by any statistics presented in the article.
 * The introduction paragraph ends with: "Despite unremarkable Test performances in 2006, which led to speculation about his lack of loop and his waning value as a strike bowler, he remains India's first-choice ODI spinner." Says who?
 * "He also performed strongly in the ODIs during the Indian season, taking twenty wickets at 19.75 in ten matches and taking his first five wicket haul in ODIs."-The reference only provides raw statistics, but whether the performance is strong or not is an added POV.
 * "With Kumble injured during the home series in March 2001 against the visiting Australians, Harbhajan, whose previous best Test figures were only 3/30, was entrusted with a heavy burden. He was to lead the spin attack against an Australian team which had set a world record with 15 consecutive Test victories, and was searching for its first ever series victory on Indian soil since 1969." Use of terms like heavy burden, lead the spin attack breaches NPOV.
 * "Harbhajan is an attacking-minded bowler who exercises great command over the ball, has the ability to vary his length and pace, although he is often criticised for his flat trajectory." - Failed verification (the reference provided indicates his attacking-mind but the rest is original research).
 * "His main wicket-taking ball climbs wickedly on the unsuspecting batsman from a good length, forcing him to alter his stroke at the last second." - Subjective statements like this need to be attributed to Pandit, instead of being stated as a fact.
 * "Harbhajan tends to bowl outside off-stump more than Muttiah Muralitharan, who attacks the stumps; he captures 66% of his wickets via catches and only 22% by bowling or trapping batsmen LBW, whereas the corresponding figures for Muralitharan are 48% and 41%." - Subjective conclusion drawn on raw statistics, convincing but original research none-the-less.  Arman  ( Talk ) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I can't see any grammatical errors in the examples cited, although the prose could be tightened in some. The adverb issues, where they are a problem, can be fixed quickly. The POV instances can also be fixed quickly. There seems to me to be zero chance of this article losing FA status and this listing could have been avoided if these relatively trivial concerns were addressed using the talk page. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On the article talk page someone already raised the POV concern, but (s)he was harshly ruled out. FAR seemed to be a better forum to discuss these issues. If you believe these are easy-to-fix then let's do it and quickly close this FAR.  Arman  ( Talk ) 10:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I see no grave concerns for this article to have been moved to FAR. These concerns could have been addressed in the talk page. I am surprised that the user has not made any attempt to discuss these issues in the talk page but has pressed the trigger to get it listed in FAR. Hence I would have to question the motive of the user in doing so... -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 11:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I already replied to this just on the post above. I don't believe there is any hard and fast rule that there has to be a discussion on article talk page before listing an article for FAR. The reasons for listing are several and very specific. So instead of spending time investigating the motive of the nominator, let's concentrate on resolution of the identified problems, shall we?  Arman  ( Talk ) 12:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Please complete the nomination by following the instructions at the top of WP:FAR to notify significant contributors and relevant WikiProjects, and post the notifications back to the top of this FAR. Thank you. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 18:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Done.  Arman  ( Talk ) 03:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Articles are nominated for FAR if they require a copious amount of work to meet the current FA criteria. What's the point of bringing this to FAR when all your comments are easily actionable? This bureaucratic process could easily be avoided by bringing up these issues on the article talk page. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This article, in my view, does need a copious amount of work to meet the current FA criteria. The language problems identified here are just examples. The article needs a thorough copyedit. POV concerns are significant. The introduction paragraph starts and ends with unreferenced POV claims. FAR is a constructive process to improve Featured Articles which are loosing quality. If you find this process unnecessarily bureacratic or want to add a new requirement to discuss concerns on article talk page before raising the article to FAR, you are welcome to raise that at an appropriate level.  Arman  ( Talk ) 02:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Anybody can check anybody else's FAC/FAR record and come to their own conclusions as to whether they are being consistent.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 03:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to draw as many conclusions as you like, but it would make more sense if discussion in this section is kept limited around the article in question.  Arman  ( Talk ) 03:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Most of the (legitimate) issues raised have now been addressed and given that this appears to be, at best, a POINTy listing and at worst, one in bad faith&mdash;given the previous history between the nominator and some of the major contributors to this article&mdash;I would propose closing this review and moving on to more productive activities. As I stated above, the points listed are minor, the article is clearly of featured quality and any remaining issues can be dealt with through the article talk page, where this should have been taken in the first place.  FARC is not a place to take personal vendettas and this listing has been an abuse of process. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree: The article still has a long way to go. The lead section and the style concerns have been fixed. But the language problems have not been addressed. The article grossly fails criterion 1a of featured article for it's poor language usage - see the examples I have given above. If someone can't see the grammatical problems in these examples, (s)he should consult a high school grammar teacher. Furthermore the POV and OR concerns especially in the "Playing Style" section have not been addressed. For example, the statement, "Harbhajan is an attacking-minded bowler who exercises great command over the ball, has the ability to vary his length and pace, although he is often criticised for his flat trajectory." - now has 3 references but none of them talk about "great command over ball" or "ability to vary his length and pace".  Arman  ( Talk ) 02:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article also fails 1c because some unreliable sources are used in the article (e.g. http://clients.rediff.com/philipseyefi/bhaji.htm and http://www.chennaionline.com/cricket/Features/2005/01news12.asp)  Arman  ( Talk ) 02:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. The diff between the FA version (Mar 9 2007) and the current version is here. The majority of the difference seems to be the addition of the incident in Australia, material about 2007 (world cup and other tours) and updated statistics. I'm no expert but it doesn't seem hugely different to me. --Regents Park (moult with my mallards) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I also agree that this review can now be closed. I also note that it is quite heavy handed, if not rude, for Arman to suggest that others that disagree should consult a high school grammar teacher.  The few minor grammar changes can be tweaked without this article staying at FAR (all articles are after all fluid including those with FA status) - and they can be easily tweaked by Arman if he really wants to without the discussion continuing here.-- VS  talk 02:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree: I can see that most of the POV issues have been addressed now, and I also agree I can give a hand to address some of the grammar issues that still remain. The article, as it stands now, is close to FA standard and I won't mind if this discussion is closed now.  Arman  ( Talk ) 03:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.