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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 11:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I referred this to WP:GAR a year ago and had it demoted so, given that it's been re-nominated, I'll be happy to do this review. Will be in touch soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm placing the review on hold for seven days. I really ought to apply WP:GAFAIL because the article is nowhere near the required standard for well-written prose. In only the first two paragraphs of the lead, there are these problems already:

• A right-handed top-order batsman. That cannot stand alone as a sentence.

• Kohli is rated as one of the best batsman of his generation.

• After a few months later, he made his ODI debut....

These occur in the first six lines of the article and must be seen as symptomatic of the whole. I will allow seven days for rewriting, proofreading and copyediting to raise the standard of prose throughout to an acceptable level. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to do some copy editing over the following days. — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:32, 27 September 2021 (UTC) (updated 10:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC))[reply]

One thing I've noticed is the use of WP:REFBOMB in certain sections, with multiple cites for the same "fact". For example, the opening line of the "10,000 runs in ODIs before age of 30" section has three refs about his 30 centuries before Ponting. That's just one example. I'll take a look at trimming some of those down, or re-jigging the refs to cite other facts in the same line. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. Thanks, Lugnuts. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lugnuts, DaxServer and Princepratap1234. Given all the work you are doing on the article, I'll postpone the review indefinitely to give you all the time you need. Let me know when you would like me to restart. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I've decided that the best thing to do with this is fail it so that work can continue until it is ready for a fresh re-nomination. The reason for failure is that the article is not longer stable given the number of contributors getting involved and the extent of amendment required. The review therefore fails GACR#5. Before re-nom, I recommend that someone does a peer review to proofread the article for spelling, grammar, syntax and phraseology to ensure that it meets the requirements of GACR#1 – I think it is still unlikely to pass that criterion which, IMO, is the single most important requisite for a GA. Review closed. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 In progress

• What is the common format that is being used to denote not-out at the end of the match, in other articles? He scored 470 runs in four matches at an average of 117.50 with two centuries and top-score of 251*. Do we use the asterisks without any footnotes?
• Kohli was bought by the Indian Premier League franchise Royal Challengers Bangalore for $30,000 on a youth contract.^[1] I've put a ((clarify)), but was removed. I don't think the citation verifies the youth contract claim. Or am I missing something?
• [1] states He then joined the Bangalore Royal Challengers for the Indian Premier League, but his performances were below-par. The note about the performance could be added [with additional sourcing] for the period between March (RCB auction) and June (ESPN article date) 2008.
• He was in fine form in that tournament and scored 206 runs in six matches at an average of 41.20. What does fine form mean? Who said? I've put a ((clarify)) tag, but was removed.
• He made his first ODI half century, a score of 54, in the fourth match which helped India win the series.^[2] Don't we attribute "helped India win the series"? I looked at the linked Indian cricket team in Sri Lanka in 2008 and [2] but nothing's asserted. I haven't looked at the commentary tab in the link, it would be an overkill for me. Sure, his fifty was helpful.
• He made 105 and 16* in that match against a bowling line-up consisting of Brett Lee, Stuart Clark, Mitchell Johnson, Peter Siddle and Jason Krejza.^[3] Can someone verify it? If I were to verify, do I need to follow the commentary?
• Almost all the ESPNcricinfo URLs had changed. What should we do?
• The Early years section is missing the description about Kohli: From [3] came across as a brash kid in love with himself ; Critics wondered whether he had the special natural talent to justify that arrogance ; others felt his attitude did not matter as long as he scored runs on the field ;the perception of his troublesome attitude and Kohli's response that everybody was entitled to their opinions and that he could not go around trying to censor people ... What people were talking about my attitude during first IPL was right to a certain extent. I have accepted the criticism and tried to take it in the right spirit . From [4] Not that long ago Kohli was an impish boy, seemingly in love with his own talent ; Ray Jennings description as a very talented kid [who] sometimes thinks he is better than the game ; He is not a prodigy but walks around with the confidence of one ; Dhoni's remarks He is an aggressive lad and it's important for him to be himself - you have to show off what you are. The good thing is, he is learning to bat long innings and through pressure situations - All of these are to be concisely sourced about his early career. (I haven't read thru the entire article, so I'm not if they are sourced somewhere, but seems unlikely.)

• — DaxServer (talk to me) 20:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  DaxServer: I have removed the asterisk and added not out in place of it. Added source mentioning youth contract thing. IPL performance is properly written in Indian Premier League section. Removed fine form thing and in point number 6, you can check bowlers name in a source given.Princepratap1234 (talk) 11:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the additions. If you could source the fine form from somewhere, please do so. — DaxServer (talk to me) 20:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Princepratap1234 It looks like using asterisk is a common convention. I think it can be set back. What do you say? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've restored the original format — DaxServer (talk to me) 16:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How do we determine his form? He was in fine form ; His struggles with form continued ; Despite the poor run of form - They all seem WP:OR to me, and need an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV citations. Like how Dhoni indicated that the in-form Kohli is likely is verifiable from the citation. — DaxServer (talk to me) 20:21, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  DaxServer: Good form means that a player is scoring well in a matches and having average more than 30 in ODI series. It is mentioned that he had average below 20 in that series so he was not in good form. It is also mentioned in this source [5] that he was struggling to get runs which is already there in article. Princepratap1234 (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The article says he's struggling, so I'm fine with asserting it as not in form. But how can I verify the statement good form being to have an average of more than 30 in ODI series? This seems to me like it requires expert knowledge of cricket. Is there something related on this topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket somewhere for my reading? — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  DaxServer: Generally if you are having average below 30 in ODI series then its considered poor but you wont get sources for these things. If someone watches cricket then he may know it.Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the explanation. I'd like to put it on record that someone who reads about the form on the article, they need to have a knowledge of cricket. As a substitute for the explanation, is there an article about form, if so, could you link it, preferably the first occurrence. — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:13, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kohli was one of three uncapped players in the Test squad - What does uncapped mean?
• Also a note, I'm fine with leaving * after the runs to indicate not out.
• The Indian cricket team in the West Indies in 2011 says India won ODI series with 5-0, while Kohli article says India won with 3-2
• Initially dropped from the Test squad for India's four-match series in England in July and August, - The source [6] says it was due to his patchy performances on his debut Test series in the West Indies - The "patchy performances" (re-worded?) could be added as a reason as to why he was dropped.
• How and where can I verify the partnership runs? — DaxServer (talk to me) 14:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Uncapped means that player has not played a single match as it was virat Debut test series. I have corrected the information in Indian cricket team in the West Indies in 2011 as India won that series by 3-2 [7]. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you also update the ODI section Indian cricket team in the West Indies in 2011#ODI series Thanks — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  DaxServer: Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princepratap1234 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Now I know where to look for the partnership stats after your recent citation, I'll omit the citation tags for them specifically if there is an ESPN link to the match scoreboard, which has the statistics tab where the partnership is located. Other editors might disagree and could ask for an explicit citation, given this being a GA review. Or, should I?
• In [8], Kohli talked about how he went it knowing that he was labelled as someone who can't play short balls. Were there short balls in the series and how did he face them? — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's mentioned that he struggled against the short ball in the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princepratap1234 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The biggest challenges had come much earlier, with the West Indies bowlers targeting a perceived weakness against short-pitched bowling. If this means he struggled, it's okay. If not, you can also add [9] could be useful which said He was unsettled by the short ball in the West Indies — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, possibly add a wikilink to short ball and uncapped, if not available, add footnotes explaining what they are. — DaxServer (talk to me) 18:00, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Kohli top-scored with 132 in a tour match against Cricket Australia Chairman's XI to strengthen his case for a spot in the playing eleven ahead of Rohit Sharma." [10] said Virat Kohli, who is likely to be India's No. 6 on Boxing Day, converted his half-century into a hundred. How does this verify "to strengthen his case..." (until end). Is there another text in the article that I fail to see? — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Kohli top-scored with 132 in a tour match against Cricket Australia Chairman's XI" add citation for the score. — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done

• "Batting at number 6, Kohli failed to go past 25 in the first two Tests, as his defensive technique was exposed." Note: In the first innings of the first test, he batted at no. 7 [11] — DaxServer (talk to me) 12:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed the batting number.

• "In the first seven matches of the Commonwealth Bank triangular series against hosts Australia and Sri Lanka, Kohli made two fifties–77 at Perth and 66 at Brisbane–both against Sri Lanka." - Kohli made 66 on the eight match, making the statement incorrect. Probably should be changed to "matches that India played", or some other, as the bonus point (next sentence) against Sri Lanka is the 11th match and the eighth that India played. — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done.Princepratap1234 (talk) 15:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "His knock was the highest individual score in Asia Cup history surpassing previous record of 144 by Younis Khan in 2004, the joint-second highest score, with Dhoni, in an ODI run-chase and the highest individual score against Pakistan in ODIs surpassing previous record of 156 by Brian Lara in 2005." - Were the records broken as of this day? If so, "at the time" phrase is appropriate for the records broken and perhaps a note as to who broken it. If not, no changes are necessary. — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Asia Cup 2012 "but India could not progress to the final of the tournament" - better to add a cite — DaxServer (talk to me) 13:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "won his first man of the match award in Test cricket" - need citation — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Expand why he was named in the "ICC World Twenty20 Sri Lanka 2012 Men’s Team of the Tournament", probably because of his performance. See what sources say. — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Replace Sportskeeda citations, see past RSN discussions — DaxServer (talk to me) 19:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• England tour 2012: "keeping India in contention of drawing the series" - need citation — DaxServer (talk to me) 10:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added "between October 2012 and January 2013", but it looks like the tours by England and Pakistan are sandwiched. Given this, does the text "between October 2012 and January 2013" still apply? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pakistan 2012: replace dead NDTV source with a live one. "being troubled by the fast bowlers" - need citation, NDTV doesn't verify — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:41, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Consider using ((refn)) to group the references in the lead for the "best batsman" — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Australia 2013: "Kohli averaged 56.80 in the series and cemented his spot in the Test team" - the second part seems to be an opinion?
• ICC Champions Trophy 2013: "He scored a match-winning 144" - Dinesh Karthik scored 106. Given this, is the statement still undisputed? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (contd) Replace dead NDTV source — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (contd) "He was also named as part of the 'Team of the Tournament' by the ICC" - consider dropping "also" as Kohli wasn't named or awarded(?) anything in the final, thus "also" becomes uncoordinated — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (contd) "India ... win and their second consecutive ICC ODI tournament victory" - what was the previous one? I lost track of it. — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ICC world cup 2011.

• 2013 Zimbambwe tour: "Many senior players, including Dhoni, were rested" - would it be beneficial to expand (inexhaustibly) the list who were rested? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• 2013 Australia tour: "Kohli's knock became the fastest hundred against Australia and the third-fastest in a run-chase" - are the records intact or broken? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not broken yet.Princepratap1234 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• second match - "Kohli's knock became the fastest century against Australia and the third-fastest in a run-chase" and sixth match - "He reached the 100-run mark in 61 balls, making it the third-fastest ODI century by an Indian batsman" - At first I thought the both "third-fastest" being the same, but had to read it twice. Consider clarification, but I'm okay with the current structure — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In second ODI, Kohli scored century in 52 balls which was the fastest century by indian ,fastest century against Australia and the third-fastest in a run-chase.

• "became the fastest batsman in the world to score 17 hundreds in ODI cricket" - would it be beneficial to mention he beat Ganguly, who was the fastest before him? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• From source [12], Sehwag made a 60-ball century, while Kohli made in 61 (6th match). Would it be beneficial to add this? — DaxServer (talk to me) 17:24, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Kohli is rated as one of the best batsman'- the word 'batsman' should be changed into 'batsmen' to make the sentence grammatically correct. Again is this sentence required at all? Moreover, the term 'batter' (Plural- 'batters') is used instead of 'batsman' and 'batsmen' respectively. I think the change I am speaking of should be made immediately. 202.142.67.117 (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I won't accept batter in the review. Kohli has always been termed a batsman until now and that is the word used in all the article's sources. The cricket project is still discussing use of batsman and batter. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then batsmen should be written to make this sentence grammatically right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.67.232 (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. If you look at my review comments above, that was the first one I pointed out. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I missed out that. By the way, why any registered user, who can edit this page, is not changing the word 'batsman' to 'batsmen'? The point is already highlighted by two users- you and me. So, the change should be made immediately at any cost. Had I been eligible to edit the article, then I would have changed it at the moment. Besides, there are a number of other syntactic errors in the article. The errors need to be corrected by some user, who is quite expert in English. As per my view, a native English speaker can redress the problem better. Thank you, No Great Shaker (talk). I am looking forward to your reply. --202.142.67.232 (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Good question. As the article is under review (although on hold at present), it is up to me as reviewer to point out problems and make suggestions for improvement. Then, although there is nothing to stop me from doing it myself, it is up to the nominator or another editor to resolve the issues (or decline to!). You're right that there are more errors of syntax and grammar which I'll highlight as and when I do the full review. However, I'll do the batsmen one now. I've sent you a site welcome notice and, if you join, you will after a short time be able to edit protected articles yourself. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, No Great Shaker (talk), thanks for your kind co-operation. You are perhaps the most friendly editor I have seen so far in Wikipedia. I have created my account. Now, I know after 4 days, I shall be eligible to edit this article. Then I shall try my best to correct the grammatical, syntactical and other such errors in this article. But I may be wrong at some places, because I am not a native English speaker. Thank you again. Soutut (talk) 07:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Soutet, and thank you. Good luck and enjoy editing. I think it'll be a while yet before this is ready for the review to begin again but there's no rush as the article is receiving attention. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, No Great Shaker (talk), I have a small request to you (Not relating to the current article). Can I make it here? Soutut (talk) 08:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should use my talk page, Soutut, if it's not about the article. There's a link to it in my signature. Try it and see how you get on. It will be good practice for you as you'll often need to communicate with other editors. Look forward to hearing from you although I won't be available for a few hours. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:02, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, No Great Shaker, just see your talk page as soon as you become available. 202.142.67.206 (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2021 (UTC) [ I am Soutut (talk) but logged out][reply]

Today is the fourth day after creating my account. Now I am eligible to edit this page. I have already done two copy edits in this page. But all the credit goes to you, The Great Shaker. Thank you.Soutut (talk) 09:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]