Talk:2024 Indian Premier League/GA1

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

Nominator: Vestrian24Bio (talk · contribs) 11:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: DoctorWhoFan91 (talk · contribs) 09:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one. Expect initial remarks in 24-48 hours. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I start reviewing, I see that you are only the 7th biggest contributor, with less than 10% authorship, and nothing on the article talk page about you nom-ing it, which isn't good. Remember for next time you are nom-ing something for GA.

• All good (though can make the Most Boundaries heading only have line- Total Sixes- 2174, instead of newline, and similiar for fours)(not necessary for GA, will just make it look better)

  @DoctorWhoFan91: How about the format used on this page? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Umm, no. Shudders. Even leaving it as is would be better than this format. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add sources for the "qualified for the final for the nth time"? (I'll have to check though if the statement might not be WP:OR)  Done

• Add '.' between "League" and "The tournament"
• Mention that Chennai is starting and ending venue bcs they won last year

   Done

• Clarify that 2008 was also the first edition
• Format- CE first sentence, weirdly worded, and explain how the "change in group order was done"- randomly, or by some rule?
• mention the playoff is a type of Page playoff system
• Schedule- Mention the election and the possibility of being held abroad, before the confirmation it'll be held at home
• Mention due to being last year's winners for Chennai again
• Expand marketing.
• Expand broadcasting

  All done, except Marketing & Broadcasting - because, they have literally nothing else to be expanded with... Which is why instead of their own separate section, they are kept as sub-sections. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Broadcasting- mention that's it's second year of the deal of this many $, after viewership etc levels last year? And for Marketing- other brands must have advertised too, and even the sponsors would have put out advertisements? DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, there aren't enough WP:RS covering those, I will add what I can find. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @DoctorWhoFan91 I have added, what I could find with sources. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Will check, bit busy. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Add comma between returned and with  Done

• remove "the" before Chennai Super Kings
• told: stated
• First Nigam sang, then all three, then Rahmnan? Bcs kind of confusing. Also maybe hit in hit song should be quoted?
• Was this it? Is it possible to extend?

This is a big list, so I'm gonna changes by problem instead of listing individual cases.

• Are records for fours and sixes really necessary in a summary? Either by a player or in a match?
• Are records in a team really necessary most of the time? (as an example- Head's fastest fifty for SRH)
• Are records for a team really necessary? Does it matter that it was the lowest or highest-scoring powerplay and stuff?
• The last SRH qualified is not referenced.
• This is not necessary for a GA, but would make the article better- are there more details for those matches which just mention who won the match? Like I know every match doesn't make records, but is there really nothing to say regarding them?

That's a lot of references, many of which are unreliable as a whole, but are fine enough for cricket though. I'll ask about ones which don't seem right(based on this version)

• Ref-5: Mention ICC as publisher
• Ref-17: is socialsamosa reliable?
• Use publisher name, not websites where possible
• Ref-23 has a CS1 error
• Ref-32 has error
• Per WP:CONSISTENT, wikilink all or none of the publisher names
• Is LatestLY reliable?
• Ref-171 is a tweet?
• Ref 168, 169- Is OneCricket or Cricket.com reliable?

Just to make sure, that's the extent of free images available? (Like maybe Orange and Purple Cap holders and MVP?)

Will review the rest of the article later, Vestrian24Bio. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Review finished, will do spot-check and pass article when all issues are resolved. Good luck, Vestrian24Bio. 19:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): 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:
· · ·