Talk:Shakib Al Hasan

Is a cricketer vs. was a cricketer

People are a bit too eager to state he is no longer a cricketer. Being banned for a year (or two) does not equal retirement. Use the recent case of the three Australian cricketers banned for one year as an example. To saying he's retired/quit cricket, etc, needs a reliable source. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Some words that are playing in the mind of cricket lovers. Why the shakib after the movement? He spoke to the gamblers in January and April in the 27th, so why has this not been the case for so long. Why after the sudden movement? His agreement with Grameenphone which the BCB deemed illegal was also followed by the movement. The supporters of Shakib Al Hasan are behind the demands of the BCB president. Shakib Al Hasan, the Ratna of Bangladesh, has become known in the world for him. I want to add this passag. Leo AL MAMUN (talk) 01:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

• No. This is just commentary, not befitting an encyclopedic commentary. Sorry, but we're not a forum. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Shakib Al Hasan/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 09:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch.
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction – not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

For reviews, I use the above list of criteria as a benchmark and complete the variables as I go along. Hope to provide some feedback soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments

As soon as I started reading this, I decided that it was going to fail GACR#1 because it is not at all well written and the lead is frankly appalling. No one reading an introduction is interested in media rankings proclaiming this, that and the other. Such claims breach WP:IINFO. The final sentence of the opening paragraph includes WP:POV expressions like aggressive batting, controlled bowling and athletic fielding. The second paragraph is a mass of statistical data that has no place in the lead and, given WP:NOTSTATS, perhaps not even in the article. It reads like a fanzine – that breaches WP:FANCRUFT and is why I've posted the fanpov banner.

The records and achievements section should be removed as it is WP:IINFO. Any significant records held by Shakib should be merged into the narrative of his career. I don't know if the sources used are all reliable but every one of the 252 references is from an online source. While I know that ESPNcricinfo and some of the newspaper sites can be considered reliable, others including one paywalled site must be open to question. There are plenty of reputable cricket book sources available, such as the Wisden Almanac, and I have to ask why some of these have not been consulted?

On the plus side, the images are very good and are WP editors' own work so it would easily pass GACR#6. The basic structure is okay and, despite reservations about some references, the reflist does meet layout style guidelines. The article is stable (GACR#5).

I've taken the trouble to find another article about a current cricketer that has passed GA. I can't see a Bangladeshi one but Jos Buttler is a current England player and his article is 30 kB compared with Shakib's 39 kB. If you look at Buttler's lead, you will see that it talks about him as a professional by explaining who he is, what he does and who he plays for before mentioning the English record he holds and a bit about his playing style. Then the second paragraph gives a potted summary of his whole career from school cricket to test cricket. That is very good and is just what the reader has a right to expect in terms of an article summary.

I'm imposing WP:GAFAIL on Shakib because the article is a long way from meeting one (GACR#1) of the six good article criteria. If I were to carry out a full review, I predict that it would also fail GACR#4 because of editorial bias and GACR#2b because there are four citation needed tags. I have no opinion on GACR#2c, #2d or #3 without a full review. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Philanthropist?

According to the article, his only philanthropic act was auctioning a bat for charity. This doesn't make him Bill Gates, I'm afraid. Is there more evidence of his munificence, or shall we remove the label? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 09:23, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shakib.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Shakib.Al.Hasan BD 75.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Award

Add his awards in this article. 103.127.86.252 (talk) 12:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)