Talk:James Taylor (cricketer, born 1990)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Harrias (talk · contribs · count) 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written? Fail: although the prose is reasonable in places, it is of a repititious nature: the first five sentences all begin "Taylor..", as do the first three in the 2009 section. The article has one example of a contraction "Taylor wasn't..", and is simplistic in places, and nonsensical in others.

2. Factually accurate? Pass: The article is well written, using a number of different sources, and references are consistently formatted.

3. Broad in coverage? Unsure: Excessive detail seems to be given on some of his innings, although given his short career, this is understandable.

4. Neutral point of view? Pass: In general the article manages to maintain a neutral point of view.

5. Article stability? Pass: Though if he starts playing for England regularly, then this could be expected to change.

6. Images?: Pass

Overall Fail: At the moment the article is not up to Good article quality, but I'll place it on hold for a week and see if anyone is willing to work on it. The content is there, but a fair bit of work will be needed to bring the prose up to standard. Harrias ^talk 16:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll see what I can do. Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've given the article a once over, what do you reckon? I've trimmed some of the detail, so it's now about 350 words shorter, and tried to add a bit of variety to the prose. I can remove more, but I am cautious as this isn't my article, I'm just looking after it. I would imagine that in the long run this level of detail is unsustainable; Taylor will no doubt play more for England and as his career continues it would be preferable to adopt a summary style, highlighting peaks and troughs in performance and generalising. But I'm not sure it's a concern just yet. Nev1 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the article, but looking through it in more detail, I think there is still too much that needs doing: the language remains poor throughout, and a little dry. I'm going to fail it now, but with some work, and I think a peer review, it isn't too far off being renominated. Harrias ^talk 17:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)