Talk:Monty Panesar

class="assess-fa " style="background: #9cbdff; text-align: center; " | FA

Rahul Dravid did most definitely receive a harsh decision - he was bowled!

Agreed

Lol, guys - this isn't a chat page! Still I thought Monty did brilliantly in the 2nd Test. John Smith's 16:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monty was fantastic in the 2nd test! Speedboy Salesman

A bit fannish?

This article seems to come perilously close to a fan appreciation page at times. I can understand the feelings behind it - I think Monty's wonderful - but it's not really encyclopedic. Loganberry (Talk) 00:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely is. I won't be able to make many subtle changes until he comes to Australia this year.Blnguyen | rant-line 01:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you please check out my section below.--StewartM82 14:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a rewrite to remove the blatant POV and some of the unencyclopedic fluff and personal opinions put in there over a period of time. I tagged the stuff which seems to be "fair call" but needs some substantiation and polish. Please have a look.Blnguyen | rant-line 02:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I have gone through the "Cricket Ability" section to try and weed out some of the grammar issues, and to add some citations where possible. I have also noticed that a lot of this article has been opinion, part of which I am guilty of, so I have done my best to address any of those issues in an effort to make a more objectively-worded document.Robinwillott 12:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic work! This article is starting to look more like an encyclopaedia entry and less like a fan article. Keep up the good job.--StewartM82 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads more like a newspaper report

This article stinks of rampant bias. It is obviously been written by a huge fan.

"Most consider him the top spinner in England."

No sources are supported here. Blatant weasel words. I have added the appropriate tag. Also it seems that the author here constantly interchanges between the first name and last name. Perhaps someone to go through a change all of the instances of Monty to Panesar.this further suggests to me that this article has been written by a fan.

"Monty is not a batsman, but can survive a good ball and can be considered a fighter. "

By who?

"The thought of an English spinner being able to take wickets with his stock delivery, as well as having a doosra spells exciting times for English cricket."

I have removed this sentence. It is not really informative and unnecessary.

This article is a good start however it reads more like a newspaper report that an encyclopaedia entry. --StewartM82 14:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit unfair on the lad. As far as i am concern, he has done brilliantly for this country and i ready to praise him.

I think you have totally missed the point here. It's not about his cricketing ability nor his service to England. It's about trying to keep encyclopaedia standards within articles. I strongly suggest you first sign your posts, and you also check out Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles. Specifically the part on weasel words. I have readded the weasel words tag. let's not turn this into an unnecessary edit war. If you are the author of this article don't take this the wrong way. Like I said initially, it's a good start however it needs some fixing.--StewartM82 15:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. However, I have been adding links to some articles to make sure all info is true.

I also agree, it is easy to lose sight of the need to apply objective rules to a subject that obviously inspires excitement and passion!