Talk:Virat Kohli/GA5

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: RIDHVAN SHARMA (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. 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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• This article first passed GA in 2015; it was reassessed five years later. Since then, it has failed a nomination in September 2021 because of concerns primarily about stability, but also prose quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
• On first look, the article seems rather heavily biased towards promoting Kohli; even allowing for the fact that he is an all-time great cricketer, the tone of this article verges upon hagiography, not WP:IMPARTIALity. To give some examples:
  • "he exuded remarkable talent, making it arduous for the coach to curb his enthusiasm"
  • "Sharma had to physically coerce him to leave the training sessions, as he was reluctant to depart"
  • "Kohli's ardent passion for cricket compelled him to travel long distances with his father to ensure that he never missed a match. With time, he diligently honed his skills and diversified his range of shots, commanding respect from the local bowlers"
  • "Kohli appeared to become more mature overnight"
  • "appeared to channel his entire existence into the pursuit of cricket following his father's untimely demise"
• All of these, from the very first section, are trivial, unencyclopedic details more suitable for a puff piece than a neutral encyclopedia article. They also contribute to the second major problem:
• Length. At over 17718 words, not including quotes, captions, tables, lists, or citations, it is far beyond the recommendations at WP:TOOBIG. I feel confident in stating that much of this excess length comes from the verbose, unbiased tone noted above.
• Per these issues, I am quickfailing this nomination as a long way away from GA criteria 3b) (excluding excess details) and 4) (neutrality). I would recommend that at least 4,000 words of non-neutral promotion be cut from this article before it is renominated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.