Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jos Buttler/1

Jos Buttler

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Jos_Buttler/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • Most recent review
 * Result: Kept It's not perfect, but perfect is not the aim. Could do with some updating and a few more references. Howeer it meets our definition of good and I have no problem keeping it. AIRcorn (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This was one of my first ever Good articles, way back in 2010. Sadly, since then I have not kept the article up to date as Buttler's career has skyrocketed. has done a pretty good job of updating the article in places, but it needs both more (and less detail) in places to meet the GA requirements 3a and 3b. The referencing in places is appalling, from the start of the 2012 South Africa, T20 World Cup and India section through to the end of the International career section there are in total four references covering eight subsections and five years. This needs a lot of work to bring it back to GA status, which unfortunately I am not currently able or willing to put into it. Harrias talk 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've not done this before and have little experience working at GA+ level, so if I'm a mile out with my comments then someone needs to tell me. I'll treat it as a learning process...


 * As the article stands right now there are clear issues - especially when it is compared to the article when it passed GA in 2010. Some of those issues have come about simply because Buttler has played a lot more cricket in the interim. Overall I'm of the view that it needs a fair degree of work to update it firstly. There are some other specific issues that could use addressing.


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): generally, yes, although there are some sections that could use brushing up (personality and style for example)
 * b (MoS): the lead could use refreshing as above. The layout is OK although it could use some thought and there may be better ways to structure the article. I have an issue with the lists from Statistics on down - these don't really have any clear context (see Manual of Style/Embedded lists) and some, at least, might be better presented as prose. For example, the man of the match awards might be better as key benchmarks in a section about his international career (see 3b below). There are four entire sections of statistics essentially bolted on to the bottom of the article which seems excessive to me. At the very least these could be condensed or included in other sections. And each will need a prose introduction at least.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): lots of refs, although as Harrias points out there are whole sections with few, if any, references.
 * b (citations to reliable sources): fine
 * c (OR): I have some concerns with the use of scorecards if they're going to be used to show anything other than participation. I would prefer if we could find alternative sources - for his very early career this may not be necessary as the references essentially show participation; for his international career I'd hope that we could fine match reports and the like instead of using scorecards (but, see 3b).
 * d (copvios/plagiarism): no problems that I can see, although the detail needs checking
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): there's virtually no coverage of his Lancashire career and none at all of his play in the IPL and BPL
 * b (focused): The international section is much too detailed. At times it tells us more about the match results and so on than it does Buttler's career. This needs to be radically summarised. Some of the subheadings might use rethinking as well.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: seems reasonable in general
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.: I don't see any major ones from the history
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): fine for this level, although it'd be nice to add some more if available
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions): dates could be added to a couple
 * No edit wars, etc.: I don't see any major ones from the history
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): fine for this level, although it'd be nice to add some more if available
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions): dates could be added to a couple
 * b (appropriate use with suitable captions): dates could be added to a couple


 * Summary:
 * needs updating, especially for domestic and franchise cricket, and some brushing up of style etc...
 * international section needs summarising massively
 * I'm not sure how best to structure the domestic/international parts - ideas?
 * lists at the bottom need either including within prose, reducing to one section or removing (or a combination of the above)
 * I know I could be wrong about some or all of that. I'm entirely happy to learn from this and would really appreciate someone else looking through my points are telling me where I'm wrong. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've largely gutted the massive amounts of detail in the international section and done some work on other areas. Lots of referencing is needed and there's probably more that can be put back into the international section I would think - there's bound to be some juicy details that I've missed. It's a start though. I've made some other tweaks and will add a Franchise cricket section at some point, although I'm not altogether sure if that's desirable or not to be honest. Feel free to rewrite entirely - there are bound to be a bunch of typos in there as well... Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)