Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cricket/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 removed by User:Marskell 16:42, 25 September 2008 [1].

---

Cricket

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Cricket and users THUGCHILDz, JPD, RobertG, and Tintin110 (top 4 contributors with edits to the article in '08).

Cricket is one of those featured articles that was promoted ages ago, on 4 September 2004. While it may have met the criteria then, I believe it extensively fails today's criteria 1(a)(c), 2(b)(c), and 3.

• 1
  • (a) well-written: The prose is not engaging, brilliant, or professional; it is overly wordy and relies too heavily on links to other articles. As somebody who knows nothing about cricket (and was hoping to learn something), it took me over 20 minutes to get through the lead alone. Every other sentence sent me to another article, as Cricket fails to explain even the most basic aspects of the game, thus relying far too heavily on links to other articles.
  • (c) factually accurate: Few if any claims within the article are verifiable, as 25 of the 33 provided inline citations are used within one section (verifying the sport exists in a long list of countries). There are a few other sources listed, but it is impossible to know which sources, if any, cover the claims within this article.
• 2
  • (b) appropriate structure The headings and TOC on this article are extensive and overwhelming. It appears that many of the sections could be combined, eliminating much of the bulk but requiring a major restructuring.
  • (c) consistent citations With the exception of one section, citations are all but nonexistent in this article. The references that are provided mostly use the citations templates, but some still consist of bare links without proper formatting.
• 3. Images. Cricket seems to have gone overboard on images, and also includes audio recordings throughout the article. If the recordings come from a reliable source, their content would be better incorporated into text. The images I checked do, however, appear to have proper licensing and source information.

I know the FAR instructions indicate I'm supposed to propose some remedies to correct these problems, but I believe nothing short of a total rewrite would suffice. Maybe I'm being too critical, but I imagine any editor who nominated this article for FA today would be pistol whipped and sent to the corner. I don't think this one can be saved. - auburnpilot talk 02:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. I agree with you entirely. The problem is that the article has had too many minor changes in the last couple of years and most of them do not add value. Far too much time has been spent in citing every single little point instead of, for example, providing one source such as Wisden that covers the whole list of countries.
• In addition, and frankly speaking, the article has suffered because certain people (including one of those named above) are obsessed with trivialities such as the perception that cricket is the world's second most popular sport after football. So it might be, but the object of this article is to present an informed discussion of the subject that will provide readers with a useful knowledge base.
• You are absolutely right that it needs a rewrite. We had to do that with History of cricket last year for similar reasons. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

  Please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAR; Remove and Keep are not declared during the review phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I have no comment on the rest, but I very much disagree about the lead being clear as to how the game works, in fact posting this after reading it. You definitely seem correct about the audio files (though I haven't listened to them, if they are what they claim to be they don't belong), and I question whether there should be a video in the infobox (again, I haven't watched it, but I can't see how it would be appropriate). --NE2 07:40, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

• Remove. Article is way below FA quality and too much work to be done to make it reasonably savable during this process. I'm going to try and bring it back to scratch, hobpefully with the help of others, but you may as well remove it here and I'll work it through FAC in due (lengthy) course. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The state of the article is being discussed on WT:CRIC, mainly by Dweller and myself. We have already begun the process of restructuring and rewriting the article, which has had its status reduced to start-class accordingly. I suggest that this FAR is closed now. Thanks to AuburnPilot for bringing this matter to a head as we probably would not have taken action without this review. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 14:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments - Is it allowable to change an article's rating before the FAR process concludes? Keep in mind that FARC hasn't even started yet. Remove declarations are not supposed to be made during this period. That being said, the article did need revamping. As I look at this now, it isn't comprehensive enough for an FA. Of course, chopping almost half the article for rewriting doesn't help in that regard. More in-line citations are sorely needed throughout. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Project assessments are a process unrelated to featured status, although it is unusual and confusing for the Project assessment and featured status to be out of sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the article is badly in need of restructure and we have begun that process already. If you like, I'll remove the project rating until the FAR has formally been concluded. Let me know. Thanks. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), structure (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

• Remove - For all the reasons listed above. Just not an FA-level article anymore. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
• Comment – It's not up to scratch. I have problems with the prose. (eg more delicate parts) I think it should be sent to people not familiar with the sport to review and copyedit. That way we address the issue of readability and brilliant prose together. My next (minor) concern are the size and placement of the images. They are too large for lower screen users. The layout also needs fixing. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove Can I say remove now? It's in the early throes of a major reworking and is a long way from ready. Personally, I want to finish working on Keith Miller before I can give it the attention it needs/deserves, but Blackjack is doing sterling work laying foundations. But it's not a FA. --Dweller (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. We'll review the revised version against our B-class criteria once it has shed its stars and whatnot. I think it probably will make B-class. Still needs a lot more work to reach the higher standards. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 16:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
• Remove. Agree with rationale given above. Many issues still remain. Cirt (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.