Talk:Tim Paine/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Comments will be up shortly. Apterygial 04:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Thanks, the first para has a source; however, I need to work out how to use a magazine to source. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First up, I'm a bit of a cricket fan, but I'll try to spot jargon if it is there. Like a lot of people, I had no idea who this bloke was when he got a century earlier this year, and this was the first place I turned. Good to see it in good shape.

  • Per MOS:UNLINKDATES dates should not be linked unless really needed.
  • Why "Tasmania University Cricket Club" and not "University of Tasmania Cricket Club" (as the article is named)?
  • "ODI's" shouldn't have that apostrophe.
  • The quotation marks are a bit mixed up in the first paragraph of Early career; they start, and then start again.
  • Couple of other things about that quote. First, it seems a little newspaperish, inserting a quote like that in the middle of a paragraph, almost colloquial. Could you convert it into your own prose? Second, if you want to keep the quote, it should ideally have a ref straight after it.
    • Not sure how to ref magazine. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 04:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Use Template:Cite journal and fill in the appropriate information. Give it a shot and let me know if you need help. While I'm reminded of cite templates, all of the other cites need both publisher= and work= information. For example, the Cricinfo ones have Cricinfo as the work and ESPN as the publisher (this information is usually found at the bottom of the source webpage). Again, let me know if you need help with this. Apterygial 02:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Note that was Cricinfo as the work and ESPN as the publisher (not the other way around). Apterygial 22:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are going to cite "talented", I reckon you could get by without the quotation marks.
  • Additions to quotes should be square brackets, not round.
  • Can you perhaps link to something which explains how averages are worked out in cricket?
  • "the locals" → "the local team".
  • There's a massive "cite journal" template in the wikicode at the bottom of this section. Any reason why? ;)
  • "...against Western Australia in Perth; scoring 28 from 44 balls." That semi-colon should be a comma, as the second idea is reliant on the first.
  • "the right-hander" would perhaps be clearer as "Paine" (repetitive, but unambiguous).
  • "For the first part of his career he has largely been Tasmania's second wicketkeeper behind Sean Clingeleffer, particularly at first-class level." This I don't fully understand: is he still Tasmania's second wicketkeeper, in which case the "For the first part of his career" is redundant, if he is no long Tasmania's second wicketkeeper, the tense is wrong.
    • And now he's the full-time wicketkeeper? Apterygial 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Why no link to Australia A cricket team?
  • You can combine those two "Main article" lines into one (see Template:Main for details).
  • A few commas to break up the run on in the first sentence of International career would be good.
  • "the tourists". Journo parlance.
  • "The right-handed wicket-keeper". Same thing as before.
  • Link Twenty20.
  • Semi-colon should be a comma.
  • "wicket-keepers spot". Missing apostrophe.
  • "The second and final T20 match of the short series was also abandoned without a ball being bowled." "was" should be "were".
    • You sure? Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. You are referring to the same match, I thought there were two different matches. Apterygial 08:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
  • "Paine scored his first ODI century;" Colon instead of a semi-colon.
  • "trouble the scorers". Again, journo parlance.
  • Dabs: Clarence.
  • That image is fine.
  • What makes Cricket Archive reliable?
    • I'm satisfied per Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harry Trott. A word for the wise, and certainly not something I'm going to hold this article to: it might be a good idea in the future to mix up where you source from; all but one article sourced here comes from the same website, when there are plenty of other sites out there offering the same info. Don't lean too much on the same people. Apterygial 03:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Thought that might be mentioned. Mostly different writers though. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 03:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That's it for now. When you've sorted through this, I'll do a second pass, and have a look at the references. Cheers, Apterygial 04:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Done the rest I think. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I've crossed off the ones which have been dealt with. Where there has been no change made, could you please explain why? Chances are, there is a great reason, in which case it will stay as is. Apterygial 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Just that ref that needs sorting out. I give it a read-through tomorrow with a view to close, so obviously I'm not going to hold you to the 7 day rule. Apterygial 12:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, my phone line (and hence my internet) went down in a thunder storm on Friday, when I was halfway through doing the final sweep.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
    No problems remaining.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Would prefer few quotes, but within acceptable limits.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Overall, it passes the GA criteria. The key thing with an article like this is to continue to keep updating it. Nice work. Apterygial 05:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)