Former good articleTim Paine was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2009Good article nomineeListed
April 24, 2014Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tim Paine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

Done the rest I think. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 08:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Tim Paine/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article became a good article in 2009. since then the quality of keeping up with Paine's career is not GA quality. there is a large chunk on his Test debut in 2010 which may be WP:UNDUE we don't normally write that long on their debut. text like this "Controversy arose in Pakistan's following series against England, when a report by News of the World said that Pakistani players Mohammad Asif, Mohammad Amir and Salman Butt had accepted bribes from agent and bookie Mazhar Majeed to purposely under-perform at certain points in the Fourth Test at Lord's" is not related to Paine.

and hardly anything on his career since 2011.

It therefore does not meet the criteria: 3.Broad in its coverage(lacking detail from 2011) 4.Neutral (undue about 2010 debut) LibStar (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a crack at chopping down that wall of text about his test debut in the next few days. The problem about covering his career post-2011 is that there hasn't been much of it, he's sort of dropped off of the radar, although he's gotten a few games in the BBL that can be mentioned. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I am going to delist this article as GA, as I've kept this discussion open for 5 months. it still has a significant gap from 2011, yes his international career has waned but this should be detailed or at least his state and IPL career. LibStar (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Former"?[edit]

The opening calls him a "former" cricketer. I know he may have played his last game, but it's not impossible that he will play again. Should this really call him "former"? --Quark1005 (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. He said he was taking "indefinite leave" from all forms of cricket, not permanently retiring from all forms of cricket. He plans to return, but he can't say when at this stage. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 19:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - fixed. If we remove the word international we can get away with what we have pretty much I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]