Wikipedia:Featured article review/Kevin Pietersen/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Dana boomer on 07:47, 23 August 2013 [1].

---

Kevin Pietersen

Review commentary

Notified: MDCollins, SGGH, WikiProject Cricket

This article was promoted to featured status in 2007, and in 2009 it appeared on the main page. However, since then the article has not been tended to, and although an array of users, and often IP editors, have kept the page more or less up to date, the more recent additions are certainly not of featured quality, and the balance of the article is inappropriate. There are numerous "citation needed" tags in the article now, and there are also a number of unreferenced claims that have not been tagged accordingly.

While I think the article has fallen into poor state generally, the criteria on which I think it is particularly problematic are 1(a): well-written, unfortunately the recent additions to the page are informative, but not at all up to a professional standard. 1(c): well-researched, the large number of "citation needed" tags has been mentioned, but I'm also surprised that nothing from Stead's 2009 biography, or Pietersen's 2007 autobiography has been used in the article. 2(b): appropriate structure, the article has simply been sectioned by tour or controversy, resulting in a large and unwieldy table of contents. Harrias ^talk 14:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Biographies of sports players who are still playing are always going to be problematic when measured against Featured Article criteria (even Good Article criteria). Unless a player is often injured, or plays for a team which does not play often, there is going to be a need for regular revision. After a while it is not simply a case of adding another section for each year, but examining what can be trimmed so that the article does not become over long. Ricky Ponting's article for instance is over 16,000 words long; deciding what to cut is a difficult process, one which I wouldn't feel qualified for for a cricketer whose career started in the early '90s. MDCollins did well to get Pietersen's article up to scratch in 2007, but looking at it now it needs a lot of work. Nev1 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• Move to FARC – The article obviously has quite a bit of unsourced content, as the tags indicate. I just fixed one of them, but there are numerous others that I'm not sure I can resolve. I must acknowledge some disappointment that the folks at the cricket project – who do fine work and have earned my respect – aren't making more of an effort to save this one, but I guess they can't be forced to do anything. If I had more cricket knowledge I'd try to save this myself, but I'm not the one to call on for re-writing an article like this; somebody like Sarastro could make the article much better than I could ever dream of. There's a good amount of work required for this to remain featured, in the end. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Move to FARC: This article is, unfortunately, a mess. The balance is all wrong, with too much on some rather minor recent series. There are some horrible bits of prose ("and despite attempts by Cook to "downplay" the incident", "ECB confirmed that they had a process which could lead to Pietersen's return to the English cricket team") which are far below FA standard, but there is little point in fixing these until the article is restructured. There is a long list of statistics at the end which serve little purpose. But perhaps the biggest worry is sourcing. We are limited to newspaper and ESPNCricinfo reports, when I suspect that more has been written about Pietersen than any other current England player. As Harrias mentions, neither his autobiography nor the 2009 biography are used, and I think these are essential. But what about other books by players, management or journalists which mention Pietersen? The 2005 Ashes alone produces a large quantity or writing, a lot of which will concern Pietersen. Unfortunately, I have none of these sources and cannot really help there, and the work can't start without them. I think the prime mover behind the original FAC has left wikipedia, but if anyone can find the sources, I would be glad to assist. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and structure. Dana boomer (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

• Delist – Sadly, no real work has been done on updating the article to meet the modern FA criteria, and I don't foresee that work coming in time to prevent removal of FA status. Almost all of the tags present at the start of the FAR are still there (I took care of one of the cite tags), and the large table of contents and lack of usage of high-quality book sources remain problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delist: Unfortunately, if no-one has the sources or the inclination, this does not meet FA standards and looks unlikely to do so for some time. A pity. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
• Delist Recent additions are pitiful for a FA. The article continues to be deficient after months under review.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Delist. Uncleared tags; structural and prose problems, such as an overlong table of contents, excessive length, contractions used outside of quotes and a journalistic, non-neutral tone. DrKiernan (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Dana boomer (talk) 11:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.