Talk:Munir Malik/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vensatry (talk · contribs) 05:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this article. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Comments

Lead doesn't wholly summarize the article, rather talks about statistics.
- Not sure, what can I add here? Zia Khan 04:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While the article talks about his cricketing career, there is nothing mentioned about his early life or family.
- There is no enough content about him at cricket sites and I don't have books. Zia Khan 04:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Dates missing in refs #1, #3 and #14.
- The 1st one doesn't need a date while others are fixed. Zia Khan 04:28, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Vensatry asked me to have a quick look at this. I don't think the lack of personal life information is an issue as there are plenty of good (and even featured) articles which lack this, and he is not notable for his personal life. In the Good Article criteria, the note for 3a (addresses main aspects) states "This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics." So, as long as his cricket career is covered in detail, that should not be an issue.

On the first-class point, I can appreciate the concerns here and perhaps I would like to see a bit more, but he only played 49 matches in his life, so there is not that much to cover. I also suspect that there is unfortunately not too much else to say about him: if the information does not exist, it cannot be included. I doubt that he was ever important enough to warrant much coverage. Wisden is always worth a check: I found "Antao D'Souza and Munir Malik, both medium-fast, kept a steady length and direction without troubling the best batsmen" in the 1963 Wisden report on the Pakistan tour, and my personal preference would be to expand the coverage of that tour in the article as it was his biggest moment.

I think the lead is more or less OK as it it personally, but I can appreciate that others may want more in there per WP:LEAD. So that one is the reviewer's call. So in short, I think this one is OK for comprehensiveness, but perhaps a little more could be added in places on his first-class cricket. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But a couple of other points:

" He left behind five daughters": Is straight from the source, and should be rephrased to avoid any potential copyvio problems. It may be worth checking a few other sources to see if there are similar problems.
The prose needs some attention before this could be a GA. A quick glance showed these problems: "and his funerals were offered at the PECHS graveyard" , "he performed well with the ball even more", "Malik Played a match against the Indian Starlets" (why is played capitalised?) Sarastro1 (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- With the available content, I think, the lead is enough. The rest of your concerns have been addressed. Zia Khan 04:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK. I still think a little more could be added on his first-class career - that Wisden quote is the only bit of information I could find on his style, as such - but there are no major problems with this article. It's up to the original reviewer now! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of stalking here:

His debut was for Punjab B, and "His 5 wickets for 19 runs, against the Punjab B, was his best performance in the season." was actually made for Punjab B, against Punjab.
The bit describing the next season makes no sense at all: "Malik started his next season with a match, against Railways,[7] where his best bowling figures came once again against the Punjab B, taking 5 for 66 this time." I don't understand the relevance of including the first match, against Railways, and yet again, he was playing for Punjab B against Punjab, not the other way around.
"he was more effective well with the ball" I think "well" is stray here, it certainly doesn't fit into the sentence.
"He, while playing for Rawalpindi, took 12 wickets for 135 runs in the match." Very odd sentence construction, consider reworking.
The article overall appears to go into minute detail about some seemingly unimportant matches, but skirt over whole seasons at other points. It makes no mention at all of his best batting performance, an uncharacteristic 72 for Combined Services against Sargodha, and I agree with Sarastro1 that it could do with more information about his Test appearances. Anyway, sorry to intrude! Harrias ^talk 16:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think, I've addressed your concerns and thanks for your help. Zia Khan 06:09, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

The cricinfo profile says that he was born in "Leiah, British India". A mention of that could be made somewhere in the article, not just the infobox alone.
- Instead of incorporating the stuff in the "Death" section, you could possibly rename the section as "Personal life" or something like that. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}
  - Done as you suggested. Zia Khan 12:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He has also played for Karachi. A mention of this could be made in the opening sentence of the "First-class career" section.
in a match 4 times -> in a match four times.
for ~~the~~ Punjab B; also for Punjab.
He was a part of the team toured England in 1962; part of which team?
including 3 Tests - > including three Tests.
"he only managed 7 matches and took 28 wickets", this sentence looks odd to me and needs rephrasing.
What's the significance of "Hanif Mohammad making 101 not out, and Intikhab Alam achieving his first Test wicket with first delivery" in the section.

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all! Zia Khan 12:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Any reason he was dropped from the national side after only three tests, and never returned? I know information my not be availble. Just a query.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno why he was dropped from the national side. Zia Khan 23:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check against the criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Article passed. Congrats! —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]