Talk:Arthur Mold

Latest comment: 4 years ago by 202.161.23.233 in topic Self Restraint?
Featured articleArthur Mold is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 27, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
April 30, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
June 29, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 27, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

GA Review

edit
This review is transcluded from Talk:Arthur Mold/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 16:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'll review this article shortly. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:28, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yay, a cricket bio that's not 60kb. All joking around aside, here are my comments:

  • "in 1882, the Middleton Cheney were unbeaten" perhaps "..in 1882, the Middleton Cheney team were.." or club
  • "As a result of his performances in the season," wouldn't it be just performance? either or's probably fine but i figured singular works best here since it refers to one season.
  • Generally in cricket, you talk about performances in the season rather than performance over a season. In other words, he had several good performances. I've clarified it to "good performances". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "in a representative match for the first time when he played for the North against the South" could this be clarified a bit? Are we talking about north/south divisions, north/south parts of the country, etc.?
  • Clarified (I think). I realised there is a (terrible) article about the fixture which I've linked, but I added a note as the article does not really explain the match played here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Up to the bowling controversy now, will finish tonight. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

It's a rule that all cricket articles must be ridiculously long to simulate the effects of watching a cricket match. Though if you think you got off lightly, wait until you get to the parts about the no-ball law and square leg umpires. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Lol, would make sense. In that case I should be making longer baseball articles since that's no different. Anyway, here's the rest of my comments:
  • This isn't a problem with the article itself, as it explains the bowling controversy well, but when I read the bowling actions article the pic looks like he's throwing the ball, which is clearly noted as not allowed; what is it I'm missing?
  • The picture is a little confusing, but I think you may be mixing up the bowling arm with the leading arm. Without boring you with cricket technicalities, the arm holding the ball must not straighten (i.e. it can be bent but not straighten; most bowlers keep their arm totally straight at this point. Except that it is not quite as straightforward as that, but anyway...) once it begins its "delivery swing". Once the ball is released, it doesn't matter. If it is the last picture which you think looks like a throw, the arm which is bent is his leading arm which has swung around. His bowling arm is still straight and hidden by his body. It is not a clear picture at all, and the only way to tell is the "whoosh" lines which show that his arm has moved. A throw is when the bowling arm straightens before the ball is bowled. I'm sure that is not even slightly clear! --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • "Lancashire in Nottingham on 26 June.[5]Early " add the space after ref
  • There's a couple sentences that start with but. It's not forbidden, but I've never been a fan of that as it reads a bit sloppy, so ideally that would be fixed.
  • "the MCC approved the scheme previously suggested:" a comma would probably be better than a colon here.

I'll put the article on hold and will pass it once those couple things are fixed. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

All done, I think. Thanks for the review. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Everything looks good now, and I think I get the bowling stuff now, so I'll pass the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Self Restraint?

edit

Please, all you happy cricket nuts, can you please hold yourselves to just one featured article a year about cricketers? Especially dead white male cricketers.

The world is such a big place. Same goes for Dreadnought Battleships, coins struck by the US Mint, and Video Games.

Slip them in to the did you know etc., but featured articles should be one a year max...

"Did You Know the dead white male cricketers appear on Wikipedia's Feature Article page more than any other topic than Dreadnought Battleships?"

Thanks! 72.141.106.240 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply


How about no, cockhead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.23.233 (talk) 13:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Agree with above and ... esoteric without elaboration of what is "unfair" about Mold's throwing

edit

This article is dominated by the "suspicions" that "condemned" Mold's "dubious" and "unfair" technique which "erupted" controversy.

For anyone unfamiliar with cricket this is frustratingly incomprehensible without a visit to the articles bowling action, delivery, and throwing. I suggest this be better summarized early in the present article. Something like: "only the rotation of the shoulder may be used to impart velocity to the ball. If the elbow is straightened more than 15 degrees it is considered 'throwing', one of the most serious and controversial charges that can be made." --Cornellier (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2019 (UTC)Reply