Talk:Kevin Pietersen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FA appeal for articles related to the 2007 Cricket World Cup These articles have free pictures of acceptable quality which make them viable to be shown on the Main Page if they become FAs in time for the World Cup. Players and coaches: Muttiah Muralitharan; Inzamam-ul-Haq, Danish Kaneria, Bob Woolmer; Shaun Pollock; Sourav Ganguly, Harbhajan Singh; Chris Gayle; Andrew Strauss, Kevin Pietersen, Andrew Flintoff, Paul Collingwood, James Anderson, Michael Vaughan, Monty Panesar, Liam Plunkett, Sajid Mahmood, Ravinder Bopara; Adam Gilchrist, Glenn McGrath, Ricky Ponting, Andrew Symonds; Ryan ten Doeschate Teams: India; West Indies Issues: Chappell Ganguly controversy Main: Cricket World Cup (13 March 2007) Copyediting requests: Indian cricket team Peer review: West Indian cricket team (peer review) Feel free to add article suggestions with appropriate free pictures to this template

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	Kevin Pietersen is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by editing the article Kevin Pietersen, or visit the project page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Neutrality 2 Fastest 1000 in ODI matches 3 Endorsements 4 verification

[edit] Neutrality

Has anyone updated the 2nd Test Match for the Ashes? He had 20 runs for the 2nd Innings, though I don't know what the 1st Innings runs were.

--- He made 75 at Cape Town, then at East London made an unbeaten 100 from just 69 balls. England lost, but Pietersen made sure it was a glorious defeat, smashing the last ball of the game for his seventh six to bring up his century. ---

--- He had a relatively quiet debut in the second One-Day International at Harare, scoring 27 not out from 47 balls with just one boundary, sedate indeed by Pietersen's standards, but an unbeaten run-a-ball 77 in the third ODI began to hint at what he could be capable of. ---

--- Pietersen was, unsurprisingly, selected for the full England one-day side at the earliest opportunity, for the tour to Zimbabwe and South Africa in 2004/05. ---

--- After England's 2005 Ashes triumph, the nickname "KP" is used to refer to Pietersen across the country. ---

--- NEUTRALITY, NEUTRALITY, NEUTRALITY, NEUTRALITY. this article is awful.

ALSO

pietersen was no "unsuprisingly" selected for the full england one day squad to south africa, and was, in fact, a last minute addition after the test series had finished.

Thorpe was not "struggling with poor form" - he was not dismissed in the Bangladesh series and had scored a vital hundred against the South Africans. I'm still at a loss to understand why Bell was preferred. It certainly wasn't on cricketing grounds. England has a history about this sort of thing (getting rid of your best and most experienced player because he doesn't get on with some of the management) - most notably the omission of David Gower from the 1992/3 India tour --- --- NEUTRALITY?? It's fine!

Neutral? This reads like it was written by KP himself, by far one of the most arrogant figures in sport, as much as I admire him.

I have removed the tag. Some of the points have been addressed and the others are incorrect. He average 22 in his last 6 innings against SA and runs against Bangladesh mean little. 62.31.55.223 03:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest 1000 in ODI matches

His 71 this morning means he has equalled Viv Richards record for the fastest to 1000 runs in ODI's. They both managed the feat in 21 innings. The record should be included and stats updated when the match has finished.

- Can we quanitify this in terms of number of overs/balls?

Certainly not overs, but you could possibly quantify in terms of balls if the the respective strike rates are known as of the 1000 mark. I had a quick look and not been able to find it yet. I'll have a longer loook sometime. As a matter of interest, if you just look at his performances for England, i.e. KP's innings for the ICC team are ignored, he did it in 19. --LiamE 00:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements

Is there any reason other than advertising for this section? KingStrato 22:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to see it removed. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Why? It is useful information. If ever hear Pietersen say anything about Woodworm I shall know he is being paid to say it. It is massively over-paranoid to regard this as advertising. Pcb21 Pete 11:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It is useful information, yes, but it looks out of place...Nikevs 15:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] verification

What do you mean you can find no unverified facts? Given that there're five citations for the whole article I would suggest that the vast majority of the article is not verified. Have you ever read the verifiability policy? I am not going to go and put the {{fact}} tag on every unsubstantiated statement in the article, it's why we have the {{not verified}} tag for the whole article. Alun 17:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously want a source tag on every score mentioned or something? Please point out what needs verification that is not verified by the sources already listed and I'll do my best to improve the article. The article may err towards pov but not unverication in my opinion but thats a different matter. --LiamE 21:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The cites given include the Cricinfo article, which contains a great deal of information. If you can't be bothered to add {{fact}} after every sentence, why do expect us to add a link to cricinfo after every one? Please indicate which information is unverified. Average Earthman 18:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't understand why this is such a big problem, editors are responsible for verifying their own edits. It is not good enough just to give a list of sources at the end of the article, this does not tell us from which sources each assertion comes from. If unsourced edits creep in, then any reader will assume that these are verified from the list of sources at the bottom, when in fact they may not be. All statements should be properly referenced with in line referencing, this can be done in one of four ways, see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation_styles. Personally I prefer the footnotes style as it is less intrusive in the text (like this ^[1] than the harvard referencing system, which leaves a partial citaton inthe text like this (Bloggs et al., 2006). If you have multiple citations to the same source then you can name the citation like this <ref name="bloggs" >Bloggs ''et al.'', 2006)</ref> then you can use the same source again like this <ref name="bloggs" />, which will point to the same reference like this ^[2][2]. For example the article states that Pietersen's mother is British and his father is South African, you can point this to one of the citations at the end of the article, so reader of the article know where to look for verification. I strongly recoment you read the three policies on verifiability, neutrality and no original research, I have found them a great help. It's also worth having a look at the fact and reference check project and the reliable sources guideline. Personally I think this is a very good article, it might be worth sending it for a peer review and even try to get it up to the standard for a featured article. I am only pointing out ways in which I think the article could be improved.

You can then extract the citations like this <references/> and the citations will appear like this:

1. ^ Bloggs et al., 2006.
2. ^ ^{a b} Bloggs et al., 2006)

All the best. Alun 05:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I suggest you do it yourself if you're so keen on it. Average Earthman 07:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. quote from verifiability policy, this policy is one of the three non negotiable policies, WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. There is no need to be so aggressive. Please observe the assume good faith guideline and the wikiquette guideline. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, surely we are all aiming for the same goal? Alun 09:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a collaborative effort. But it seems a bit of a one way street. You are happy to quote rules ad nauseam but I havn't seen a single edit from you improving the article. Every fact in the article is verified by the sources so far as I can tell. --LiamE 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

And as you seem so fond of rules, try this one WP:AAGF. --LiamE 10:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

So should there be an AAAGF page as well? (joke) OK, if I have caused offence, as it appears I have, then I am sorry, it really was not my intention, I was in actual fact trying to offer an olive branch earlier, maybe it was a lack of skill on my part that I didn't do it effectively enough. The reason why I haven't added any constructive input to the article is because, as I said earlier, it is a very good article, I'm not sure it needs any more than a bit of tweaking (and that is just my POV, other may disagree of course). I did actually think that the suggestions I had made about improving the reference style of the article was constructive, at least it was meant to be, again I am sorry that I expressed myself in an antagonistic way. I will take your suggestion and reference the article in the way I usually use (here's an article fact and reference checked a little while ago Rosalind Franklin. If you find that you don't like it you can revert my changes and we'll leave it at that. Alun 12:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say the Rosalind Franklin article goes a bit OTT on referencing for my taste - its begining to detract from the artcle - but thats by the by. If the same were done to any cricket article it would be the same ref over and over again which would certainly detract from the article. The cricinfo bio is cited in the first paragraph proper so what would be gained from citing it again after that? Most regular cricket article editors are meticulous with regards to facts and figures and this article in particular has come in for a lot of attention. Compare this article to other leading cricketers like Rahul Dravid, Ricky Ponting or Jack Hobbs for instance off the top of my head. If you feel that the style of referencing could be changed for the better on these articles and therefore cricketers articles as a whole the Cricket project would be the place discuss it rather than on one cricketer's page. The vast task of getting a bio up for all international cricketers is either complete or nearly so, so now might be a good time to look into what needs to be done next. Incidentaly the Donald Bradman, referenced silmilarly to this, article was denied featured article mainly on length and refs so things perhaps need to be changed/improved but across the cricket bios as a whole not just here. --LiamE 13:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I give way to your obvious superior knowledge of the whole Cricket project on wikipedia. All the best, Alun 16:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)