Talk:VVS Laxman

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "family" :
  • [http://cricket.indiatimes.com/articleshow/498991.cms]
  • [http://cricket.indiatimes.com/articleshow/498991.cms]

DumZiBoT (talk) 03:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Very Very Special

He is termed as very special because he plays shorts very differently out of the way.He is the first Hyderabad player to play 100 above tests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajashekahr (talk • contribs) 03:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can anyone explain the spelling–pronunciation discrepancy ("Latchman")? Rothorpe (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Its pronounced as LakhsmanRRD13 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Vaseline controversy

A sensible, sourced and NPOV account of the vaseline controversy should be added to this article. --Dweller (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not every BS tweet made by Mr. Vaughan deserves a mention. Turned out be just a war of words/tweets as nothing was proved. Maybe it should be added to Vaughan's article to let readers know how he made a fool of himself and continues to do so eight years later. 2409:4071:200B:5842:C11:DFD3:C9B5:837C (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ssriram mt (talk · contribs) 00:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC) I will take up the review of the article.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	There are a few spelling mistakes.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead and sections have peacock terms (superb timing, such a fine stroke player). The sentence formation and contents have lot of repetition (like Person life, Early career sections)
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	There are quite some references that are bare urls lacking the basic parameters like publisher, first, last names and accessdate. Some paras are totally without any reference. The ref structure is highly malformed.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Goes with 2a above.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The stats needs to be realigned. Data for Test cricket 50/100s against each nation is missing. Also what is the 135 that hangs out? The fielding records can be included for Tests as well. Quotes can be written inside user boxes rather than as a separate section.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image alt needs to be added and a detailed description.
	7. Overall assessment.	Since there are lot of comments that would need time to fix, i am failing it for now. Please fix the same and subject it to GAN later. All the best.

Ancestry

He is not the grandson of any former President. This information has been removed.--Abhinav619 (talk) 09:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The source says great grand nephew. --Dweller (talk) 15:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Consequently, and as the material was sourced, I'm going to restore it. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)