Wikipedia

Talk:Shakib Al Hasan/Archive 1

< Talk:Shakib Al Hasan
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Pmohd in topic Earning Of Shakib Al Hasan
Archive 1

Explanation of recent reverts

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
The following is copied from the talk page of Wiki id2 (talk · contribs) to explain the recent reverts the article has undergone. The reply from Wiki id2 was on the talk page of Nev1 (talk · contribs)

I've undone your edits to the above article as unfortunately they weren't really an improvement and I thought I should explain in more detail than can be managed in a edit summary. Shakib has already played over 100 ODIs, giving that much detail on the New Zealand series – with a match-by-match description of events, including stuff that wasn't even directly related to Shakib's performance – unbalances the article. Either it has to be reduced so it's in proportion, or the same level of detail has to be maintained throughout which will bloat the article beyond a manageable size and what a reader finds interesting. There was also the problem of tone; calling New Zealand's bowling "superb" is an opinion rather. There's nothing wrong with including opinion in an article, but it needs to be made clear whose it is. I understand wanting to make the prose interesting, especially as sports journalism attempts to capture the energy of the game to engage readers, but this is an encyclopedia and we have to stick to verifiable information. Nev1 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point and that there are certain grammatical errors such as "superb" but Al Hasan captained the team and therefore the whole performance has to be mentioned because he is the leader and the captain of the team. Naturally if this is a more notable series for Shakib than it will have more details. It's not like a tour of South Africa by India in 2000 will have more coverage on Sachin Tendulkar's article if his best score is 50*. Naturally the series against South Africa in 2010 when Tendulkar registered a double-century the first to do so in an ODI will recieve more details.
The same is here Shakib was a member on this notable tour, he led for the majority of it. Therefore the team performance has to be mentioned because that team's performance is the captains peformance. Thanks for telling me about the grammatical errors though (Wiki id2(talk) 06:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC))
I don't think you've understood my point. Including opinion such as an innings was "superb" isn't a problem with grammar, it's a problem with tone. An encyclopedia should have a neutral tone and the clearly expresses an opinion. The level of detail you're including is unsustainable and degrading the quality of the article. Of course events should be weighted by their significance, so a man of the match performance is more noteworthy than a quiet match, but you've gone beyond that and are including information that simply isn't relevant. Let's take the example of the information on the New Zealand series which you rewrote:

Bangladesh participated in a five-match series against New Zealand in October 2010. Bangladesh won the first match courtesy of a four-wicket haul by Shakib. However shortly after the match Mortaza was diagnosed with an injury and Shakib was made temporary captain. The second ODI was washed out due to rain. In the third ODI New Zealand were bowled out for 174 and Shahriar Nafees guided the chase by scoring 73. Shakib scored the winning runs. Bangladesh needed to win the fourth ODI to win the series going into the ODI New Zealand won the toss and chose to bowl. Bangladesh struggled early on with Shariar Nafees and Junaid Siddique falling in quick succession however Shakib came to bat and scored 106 runs before being caught and bowled by New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori. The team managed to score 241. New Zealand chase started horribly with Brendan McCullum and Ross Taylor falling early. However Kane Williamson continued to resist and managed to score 108 he found little support with the remainder of the lower order. New Zealand were 232 all out and Bangladesh won by nine runs. This was the first time in cricket history in Bangladesh that the team beat a full-strength test-playing nation in an ODI series. As the previous wins against Zimbabwe and West Indies were against weakened teams. When the fourth ODI was played Bangladesh collapsed to 174 all out courtesy of a superb New Zealand bowling performance, when New Zealand batted they lost two early wickets in Brendan McCullum and Jesse Ryder. New Zealand slipped to 20-5. New Zealand captain Daniel Vettori and Grant Elliott led a resurgence, but, the New Zealand brittle batting order couldn't bear the pressure and the match came down to the wire with Kyle Mills continuing to resist Bangladesh, in the final over being bowled by Rubel Hossain he fired a full toss which went for four, the next ball was a yorker and a dot ball. And the following ball was a yorker which wiped out the leg stump. This became the lowest score Bangladesh had ever defended, New Zealand collapsed to 171 all out. Bangladesh won the five-match series 4-0 winning the first an third match comfortably and fighting hard to win the fourth and fifth match.(the second ODI was washed out due to rain) [1] This became arguably Bangladesh's finest hour in international cricket.[2]

In the above there are multiple problems with the level of detail and tone.
  1. "Bangladesh won the first match courtesy of a four-wicket haul by Shakib": this implies it was the only performance of significance. The four-wicket haul may have been important, but who says? Teams have lost ODIs even when people have scored centuries or taken five wicket hauls for them.
  2. "In the third ODI New Zealand were bowled out for 174 and Shahriar Nafees guided the chase by scoring 73": in what way is Shahriar Nafees' performance relevant to an article on Shakib Al Hasan?
  3. "Shakib scored the winning runs": Shakib's a middle order batsmen and has been at the crease on more than one occasion when Bangladesh have won. Are we to include every time he scored the winning runs? Scoring the winning runs isn't necessarily significant. He could have just walked the the crease with a single to get from nine overs and edged it through the slips.
  4. "New Zealand won the toss and chose to bowl": again this just isn't important; every match has a toss, why both mentioning this one?
  5. "New Zealand chase started horribly": editorialising again and not taking a neutral stance, from Bangladesh's view it might have started ideally.
  6. "However Kane Williamson continued to resist and managed to score 108 he found little support with the remainder of the lower order": in an article about Shakib Al Hasan, I'm bewildered why there's so much information on the performances of others; no link is made between Williamson's century and what Shakib did. It does not provide context, it merely distracts when done like this.
  7. "174 all out courtesy of a superb New Zealand bowling performance": it's interesting that even though you said you recognised some of the tone was poor (well, you misunderstood my point about tone to mean grammar) you failed to change this example I picked out.
  8. "when New Zealand batted they lost two early wickets in Brendan McCullum and Jesse Ryder": again there's the problem of how does this related to Shakib. This level of information belongs in an article about the series, not one player. If you could clean up the tone of the prose, I'd seriously recommend you put this kind of stuff in New Zealand cricket team in Bangladesh in 2010–11 rather than here.
  9. "New Zealand brittle batting order couldn't bear the pressure and the match came down to the wire with Kyle Mills continuing to resist Bangladesh, in the final over being bowled by Rubel Hossain he fired a full toss which went for four, the next ball was a yorker and a dot ball": no mention of Shakib, and describing New Zealand's batting as brittle is a judgement call Wikipedia editors should not be making. Who described them as brittle? A pundit or former cricketer commenting on the state of New Zealand's batting in the series would be the kind of detail that does improve the article if it could be found.
  10. "winning the first an third match comfortably and fighting hard to win the fourth and fifth match": why repeat what's already been said in the rest of the article? (Never mind the problem with who said whether the wins were comfortable or difficult.)
  11. "This became arguably Bangladesh's finest hour in international cricket": who argued this? Unless that opinion is attributed to someone, it does not belong in an encyclopedia article.
What you replaced (shown below) was an effort to keep out the unimportant detail that bloated the article after your edit. It mentions Shakib's significant performances, the century and the four wicket haul for example, while providing context that it was the team's first win against a full strength ICC Full Member nation and that Shakib finished with most runs and wickets for either side.

In October 2010, New Zealand went to Bangladesh for five ODIs. In the first match of the series Mortaza injured his ankle and was forced to leave the field; Shakib took over, and under his leadership Bangladesh secured a nine-run victory, with Shakib himself taking four wickets and scoring 58. Once it emerged that Mortaza would be unable to play in the rest of the series he was made captain for the remaining matches.[89] In the fourth match Shakib scored a century and took three wickets to help his team win nine runs.[90] Bangladesh went on to win the series 4–0,[91] their first series victory against a full strength ICC Full Member nation.[90] Shakib finished the series as the player with most runs and wickets on either side: 213 runs[92] and 11 wickets.[93]

You also need to work on your referencing. In the above example you ditched several inline citations and referenced all your new material to two pages which simply didn't cover everything. In this edit you include only one reference; that's not a problem as long as all the information provided is in the link but that's not the case. Where in that article does it say the fourth ODI was rained off? In this edit the end of the paragraph under the section you renamed series against Zimbabwe (2010) is unreferenced. Per WP:V that information can be removed if challenged. It's standard practise on Wikipedia to provide references every time you add material to an article. As you've managed to use them elsewhere you are clearly aware of this, so it's really not acceptable to be sloppy in this way. With this poor referencing, editorialising seems to have crept in. You added "He criticsed the fact that he had been given a side that he didn't want and that he wasn't happy with some of the top order that was selected for the series referring to the selection of Mohammad Ashraful" which is completely unsubstantiated. Where exactly does Shakib refer to the selection of Ashraful? Finally, when you add referenced information to an article, could you please ensure it's formatted in the same manner as the rest of the article. Having references with different formats is untidy and goes against the manual of style. I'll post a copy of this onto the talk page to demonstrate that I've made an effort to solve this problem. Given the problems listed above, I have reverted your edits and ask you to please not reinstate them. Nev1 (talk) 13:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago62 comments4 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Shakib Al Hasan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. I note that since I'm not really a cricket kind of guy, I may need to give it a couple reads before a review, so it could be a couple days. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are the issues I found:

  • "ensured he retained the position even once Mortaza had recovered." 'after Mortaza recovered' sounds clearer.
  • "Test cricketer of the year" seems off that just the first word in that award is capitalized; double-check that.
  • The source I used isn't even consistent, using both "Test player of the year." and "Test Player of the Year". But as it's an award I think it should probably be capitalised and it now is. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "was taught by his father who previously played for Khulna Division, and a cousin had represented Bangladesh." comma after father and add who after cousin
  • Harrias again implemented the change which seemed reasonable. I wasn't quite happy with how it sounded though so went back to the source to see how I could rephrase it, and to be fair although his father played a match for Khulna Division and one of Shakib's cousins represented Bangladesh at national level, it doesn't mention anyone actually teaching him football so I've removed that bit as it doesn't seem quite so relevant any more. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shakib was representing Bangladesh U19s." sounds odd as worded; I'm pretty sure i know what it means, but I don't think that's how it's written. Maybe say that Shakib represented Bangladesh in the Under-19 Cricket World Cup, or something similar?
  • I agree with the suggestion and Harrias has the change. Harrias correctly removed the bit about Shakib being 15 and playing for the U19s; while the source does describe him as 15 I think this was a typo as in 2005 he would have been 18. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • You use the first name when referring to him, which is improper for encyclopedia articles.
  • As with a lot of Asian players, Shakib is referred to by his first name. Aaroncrick TALK 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Some of the references don't have publisher info (i presume they're cricinfo, but nonetheless need to be added.
  • I could only spot four references that were missing publisher information (120 to 123 in this version) and those have been fixed. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Magura's a disambiguation page; fix it where used in the first sentence.
  • Again, Harrias is the one responsible for fixing the dab link. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "the team caused an upset by India" i get what you're trying to say, but it sounds strange as worded.
  • Harrias (I'm beginning to notice a pattern here) filled in the missing word. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Brett Lee claimed Shakib's wicket," a player claiming another's wicket sounds wrong. that could be normal though and my lack of cricket knowledge is showing instead. if that's the case maybe link claiming if there's an article for its use in cricket.
  • "Claimed" was used an alternative to "took" to avoid becoming monotonous, but you make a fair point so I've changed it. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "had focussed" focused
  • Harrias fixed that typo. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "keep together a core squad of talented players to gain experience at international level." at the international level

About halfway done, but am going to hold off for another day or two. My apologies that I'm working slowly on this. Putting the article on hold so that we can at least get progress on what I have covered. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to a lack of time on my end I'm handing this review off. While it gets ready to be re-reviewed hopefully the noted issues will be fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Wizardman asked me to have a look, and I should get to it by the end of the week, if not sooner. The only slight problem is that my computer is having some sort of breakdown, so it may take a day or two longer than I hoped. Definitely by the end of the week, though! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you to Wizardman for taking on the review initially, as you're not really a cricket guy I hope it wasn't too arduous! I'll be addressing the points raised tonight. And thanks Sarastro for picking up the baton, I'll try to address concerns promptly. Nev1 (talk) 18:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
PS. Thanks also to Harrias (talk · contribs) and Aaroncrick (talk · contribs) for helping out. Nev1 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Review: Sorry for the delay, my computer is in a much worse state than I imagined! I'm borrowing one right now, so my replies to you may be delayed by a day or two at the moment, but hopefully not. Generally, a very good job collating so much information like this. Reads quite well, too. There are a few issues, but should not be a problem to sort.

Lead:

  • I think there should be more about his playing career here. Only his captaincy is mentioned and he was already a player of some stature when he was appointed. Generally, I do not think the lead summarises the whole article at the moment.
  • I've had a go at expanding it, do you think it needs more? Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
That's fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
  • ODI is used here and in the main body without any explanation for the non-cricketer.

Early years and youth cricket:

  • "Shakib "was fairly proficient [at cricket] and was often hired to play for different villages"" This quote (which I don't really think is a great way to start the main article) should be attributed to Shuvro in the text.
  • "taped cricket ball" may need explaining for the non-cricketer.
  • I've added a wikilink, do you think this is enough. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Fine now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Details on his family or upbringing?
  • To be honest, I've not been able to find much on this. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • How did he do for Islampur? This section mentions his selection for this team and then he is playing U19 cricket, without any real suggestion as to how he got there. It does not help that "Bangladesh Krira Shikkha Protishtan" is a redlink, as I have no idea what this is.
  • Fair point, I've added an explanatory note. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I've not been able to find out how Shakib did for Islampur, there doesn't seem to be much out there on it. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Always seems to be the way, unfortunately! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

International breakthrough: Generally fine, just two points

  • Why was he selected at all? Were there any performances to catch the selectors' eyes, or was it just a punt?
  • Statements released by teams on selection issues sometimes include comments on recent performances that have influenced selection, but it's a bit hit and miss and that doesn't seem to be the case here unfortunately. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Possibly too much detail about the team in this section, which I would be inclined to cut as it should be about Shakib, but I'm not that bothered and it would not stop me passing.
  • I was thinking about what material I'd remove, but I a inclined to keep it as it is. I think it provides context for Shakib's performances, but if you've got suggestions about particular bits that could be trimmed I'm happy to listen. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Not enough of an issue for a GA; would be an issue if it went further. And I take your point anyway, to be honest. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Becoming Bangladesh's leading all-rounder: Would it be possible to have a catchier title?

Not keen on the title myself, but I'm stuck for an alternative. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to call it "Leading all-rounder" or "Bangladesh's leading all-rounder". But no big deal. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Shakib was considered more of a batsman than a bowler, despite being an all-rounder.": Who considered him to be an all-rounder at this stage? The evidence suggests a batsman who bowled, so it could do with something like "Shakib/the team/the selectors considered him to be an all-rounder".
  • Hmm, tricky, the source is vague and only says "In Tests he has batted mostly at No. 7, but all along, he was always known as a batting allrounder". Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Seems a bit iffy, but that isn't our problem! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Though he usually batted down the order at number seven in Tests, he had usually batted in the top five in ODIs." usually ... usually
  • I've changed the second "usually" to "mostly"; how do you think that works? Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks good. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm not a big fan of the two stats tables, but that could just be me. It may be better told in prose.
  • I assume you're talking about the (now three) tables embedded in the main body of the article. They contain statistics at key parts of Shakib's career, so: 1) before New Zealand toured in October 2008, at which point he was considered a "batting all-rounder" 2) the day he was first ranked the number one ODI all-rounder, showing a substantial change in figures between the two dates and 3) his stats that earned him the Wisden award. For me, the tables marked an easy way to highlight what I thought were important figures without bogging down the article with more "scored xyz runs at an average of wx,yz". I've not seen this done anywhere else (well not in article's I've not edited, I've tried something similar to this elsewhere) and thought it was worth the experiment. I'll leave them in for now, but as this could end up having a wider impact on article (when I try to write a GA I look to others to see what has worked) I'll raise the issue at WT:CRIC. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
OK, but I'll strike the comment for now as it's a personal thing. I don't think one size necessarily fits all, and I've seen cricket FAs with and without these. And my instinct is that they may mean more for modern players rather than former ones, owing to the amount of cricket covered by the stats which would benefit from breaking down. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I raised the issue at WT:CRIC and the opinions were that the experiment wasn't really successful so I've removed the tables. Nev1 (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "scoring 92*": Should be 92 not out.
  • There were a couple more instances in the body of the article where * was used instead of 2not out", this has now been changed. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "as his team again slid to defeat" A touch dramatic?
  • Fair enough, I was trying to find a way to break the monotony of Bangladesh losing! I've changed it per your suggestion. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Vice captaincy:

  • "Shakib was considered as a possible successor by the Bangladesh Cricket Board (BCB), however the BCB was cautious of over-burdening the all-rounder and decided against the move." This should be two sentences, with the second beginning "however".
  • "This was achieved against a very inexperienced West Indies side as a result of a dispute between the West Indies Cricket Board and the West Indies Players' Association over pay." Maybe make explicit that the team's inexperience directly followed from the dispute as the players boycotted.
  • I thought the following sentence made that clear with the first choice players making themselves unavailable for selection, but how about this edit? Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Clearer now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Zimbabwe:

  • "before being unfortunately run-out" suggests POV. If, as I suspect, it means he was unlucky in the manner of his dismissal, it should explain how.
  • You're quite right, and I've removed "unfortunately" (in my defence it wasn't me who added it in the first place!) Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

England and the Asia Cup:

  • "Bangladesh returned to England for the ODI half of their tour and although the series 2–1[77] their victory in the second match was the first time Bangladesh had beaten England in international cricket" This does not make sense: and although the series 2-1.
  • Does this make things clearer?
Yes, although I made a pedantic grammar tweak. Sorry! --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "The match against Scotland was abandoned and Bangladesh lost one match to each of Ireland Netherlands" also does not make sense.
  • I'm afraid I don't know what to do here as it makes sense to me. Nev1 (talk) 23:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Missing "and" between the teams, fixed it myself. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "Having signed him in November 2009,[84] Shakib joined up with Worcestershire County Cricket Club" May be better as "Having being signed in..."
  • It's a tricky sentence, but I don't really like the "Having being" phrasing so I've gone for "Having signed a contract in November 2009,[84 Shakib joined up with Worcestershire County Cricket Club]" which uses the active voice. Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "scoring 187 at an average of 37.4": for consistency should be 37.40.

New Zealand and Zimbabwe:

  • "Once it emerged that Mortaza would be unable to play in the rest of the series he was made captain for the remaining matches." Presumably it was Shakib who was made captain, not Mortaza.
  • I really don't like record and statistics sections. This part should be cut or integrated into the text, as we aren't CricketArchive. The stats tables here are fine, though.
  • That's fair enough, I am in two minds about them and it doesn't help having to update them regularly. I'm not averse to removing them (the whole chunk in fact), but which parts did you think were fine? Nev1 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Although I'm not a fan, I've no problem with the tables giving his stats, although they are a pain to update. Personally, I think they are too much in any cricket article but have no objections to keeping them. It is the "facts" and Man of match stuff I really think should go. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • That's fine by me, and I've got rid of the stuff. At the James Anderson (cricketer) article I ditched the entire section as an experiment (it's a higher profile article) and to be honest not having the long tables as well as records makes the article feel more... readable I suppose rather than a collection of stats and trivia. Nev1 (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Spot check of sourcing reveals no problems. Also, images and stability seem OK.
  • Links on ref 45 and 46 playing up.

It's already on hold, so I don't need to do that, but I don't see any obstacles to passing this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Starting to look good, nearly there. And if any of the above points (such as his early life and career) do not have the info available, I would still pass without a problem. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
My only remaining issue is with the lead. Anything I've left unstruck is either something I'm not bothered about or is not actionable until more information becomes available. I'll pass as soon as the lead is added to as it looks good now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
All done, passing now. Sorry it's taken so long. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As it happens, I was going to thank you for your patience as I know I've taken my time with this. Thanks for the review, I think the article's improved substantially in the process. Nev1 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Undoing the split

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I fail to understand why Nev1 would undo a split of articles into sections, citing "this article is chronological and not thematic", when I had split the World Cup 2011 section from the NZ series section, since THE WORLD CUP TOOK PLACE AFTER THE NZ SERIES!

I understand the problem with the "Domestic career" thing, but you really should've paid more attention with the entire edit before undoing it.

I'm redoing the split (without the Domestic career section, I buy your argument on that) manually again. Ratibgreat (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad the domestic and international stuff remains integrated as that maintains the chronological order, but I'm not sold on the need for separate sections for the World Cup and afterwards. There's just 119 words on the World Cup, which doesn't seem enough to warrant a stand-alone section, and likewise there's two short sentences on what happened afterwards. I don't thing this kind of division is necessary. Nev1 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
For the simple reason that the World Cup and the NZ series are two separate events. For the same reason as you don't put 2011 events under 2010 no matter how banal and less the 2011 events are. Chronology, my friend, is maintained only when we acknowledge the phases. Now if you want to call the NZ section as 2011, maybe we solve this problem. But the World Cup and the NZ series are two separate events (just like attending 4th grade and 5th grade) and cannot be under the heading NZ series. Ratibgreat (talk) 16:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
That much is obvious, I didn't dispute that I'm just concerned about creating too many subsections, more than is useful. Nev1 (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Earning Of Shakib Al Hasan

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,Do Anyone here know what is the Earning of Shakib Al Hasan? It hasn't been updated since forever. He plays in all types of leagues like IPL,BPL,CPL,SLPL,County,Big Bash and so. BCB pays him a decent amount of salary. Recently, he has started a Restaurant business adding up with his previous cosmetic shop and event management business. Also a massive amount of his earning comes from endorsements and also TV appearances. Minor things like YouTube channel earning,Website earning and event appearance earning must also be calculated.

Cricketers earning is an important thing that people might want to see. There has been a decent amount of searches in 'Google' about it. So,I think the WikiPedia team should find out something about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khan10s (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's somewhere around BDT4,25,000[3]Pmohd (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Shakib Al Hasan/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

The article was promoted to GA in 2011 and from then the quality of the article has gone down. The "Post-captaincy (2011–present)" subsection under the "International career" section is poorly written and not comprehensive in its coverage (that is four long years of his international career). An entire paragraph in the "International debut" section is unsourced. Overall the prose in many different places of the article is not up to the mark, with several dubious unsourced claims in the lead section too. It currently fails criteria 1a, 2 and 3. In its current state, the article does not deserve the GA status. Fenopy (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it badly needs to be brought up to date. Sorting that out would address the prose and verifiability issues at the same time, but it's not a small task, and I don't have enough time to take it on, so I think removing Good Article status is the way to go. Nev1 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Delisted for now. Fenopy (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Information

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Shakib is the most talented player in the world. Last march vs Afghanistan he taken four wicket & top scorer in bangladeshi batsman. Mahmudul Hasan Mithon (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.cricinfo.com/bangladesh-v-new-zealand-2010/content/current/story/482130.html
  2. ^ http://www.cricinfo.com/bangladesh-v-new-zealand-2010/content/current/story/481617.html
  3. ^ https://livesportworld.com/shakib-al-hasan-cricketer-wife-salary/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shakib_Al_Hasan/Archive_1&oldid=1137182731"