Wikipedia

Talk:Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/GA1

< Talk:Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
Latest comment: 15 years ago by SilkTork in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments2 people in discussion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

What is a good article?

edit

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

edit
  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments

edit

Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 00:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;   and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.  

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;  (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;   and (c) it contains no original research.  

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;   and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).  

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.  

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.  

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;   and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.  

  • Initial inspection.

This appears to be a detailed and well researched article on a fascinating and valuable topic. At first glance this is likely to pass GA with little difficulty. There are some minor issues that I'm cleaning up as I read through. The "see also" tag is for sections not articles; links are best checked to see if they go to the right place; and there are some statements that have multiple cites - this in particular seems excessive: "Bradman always batted at No. 3.[4][6][10][13][16][17][20][26][29][31][32][33][49][50][66][68][136][99][137][138][102][103][111][112][139][140][114][116][117][21][22][23][24][25]". I'm also curious about the structuring as the non-Test matches are dealt with during the sections on each of the Test matches, and this may not be the most navigatable/helpful way of presenting the information. Has a separate section for other matches played concurrently with the Test series been considered? I haven't examined closely yet, but some sections appear to drift away from a focus on Bradman to general comments about the team. It's an awkward balance in providing background information and context and staying focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail - however, for example, in the Role section is the detailing of the ages of so many other players really necessary? The article was created on Jan 12 by YellowMonkey who is essentially the only contributor, and is also the nominator. YellowMonkey is an experienced and prolific creator of Featured and Good articles. SilkTork *YES! 11:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Generally, chronological order is what is taken to be standard, because things that happen in tour matches between Tests affect what happens in later Tests of vice-versa, eg a player gets injured in the Test and misses the next tour match, or vice versa. The reason I added that list of matches was because I was unable to find a direct statement in a book that said when he batted in the No. 3, so I had to list each of the reports for the separate matches. In other parts, I had to add two, usually the team schedule and Bradman's schedule, to show that he missed a certain match, ie, the match showed up on the team but not on Bradman. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Concerns arising.
  1. I just picked up "leg trap" in the lead. This is a jargon term which needs explaining, especially as there is no article to link to. Perhaps in the lead it could be something like "bowling style" or "bowling strategy", and then an explanation of leg trap in the first appearance in the main body. More jargon - "scored 3/404"; an explanation of this scoring system would be helpful at first mention - I assume this means scored 404 runs for the loss of 3 wickets; though we get "Harvey took the catch at 129/1" and "leaving England at 129/2" in the Fourth Test section. SilkTork *YES! 11:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. I went through on Friday to eliminate teh inconsistencies in ENG/AUS score format, but there was one missing, added a footnote to explain the convention. Fixed the leg trap. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. The InfoBox is not accurate. His Test career average was 99.94 - yet box shows 72.57. Factual details in the box and throughout the article need checking. SilkTork *YES! 11:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Ah! I see the intention is to show his batting average for the tour. It's that the InfoBox says "career"! SilkTork *YES! 11:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC) The solution would be to create a template specially for details of a cricketer's performance on a tour. SilkTork *YES! 11:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. done for the whole tour set YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. For broad coverage and justification of mention of Bradman as selector in the lead sentence I'd like to see some information on the preparation and selection process. SilkTork *YES! 12:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Added a bit at the strat/ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. Some attention needs to be paid to the O'Reilly / Bedser details in the First Test section. This is not clear: "Bedser waved to O'Reilly in the press box. When Jack Fingleton reported what his friend O'Reilly had done, there was some debate as to whether O'Reilly's actions were treacherous." SilkTork *YES! 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. Hopefully explained for clearly who they are YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. This sentence is unclear "Many spectators walked only the playing arena to greet the arrival of Bradman". SilkTork *YES! 13:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. Clarity regarding use of the heavy roller in the Fourth Test. "Batting into the final day allowed Yardley to ask the groundsman to use a heavy roller" / "Bradman elected to not have the pitch rolled at all". Should that be: "Bradman blocked Yardley's request to have the pitch rolled"? SilkTork *YES! 13:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Explained. The batting captain is allowed to roll the pitch at the start of each day, and at the start of his team's innings. Yardley chose to continue batting for a token period on the fifth day so he could use the roller to damage the pitch. When Australia started their innings Bradman chose to not use the rooler because he thought it would damage. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. Rather a lot of Thens: "Australia then faced and drew with Lancashire", "Australia then headed to The Oval for the Fifth Test". I'm removing some as I go through, but it's worth bearing it in mind when writing. Also, in reference to the comment above about the non-test matches being mixed with the Test matches - this is an awkward transition:
    "Australia had won by seven wickets, setting a new world record for the highest successful Test run-chase, with Bradman unbeaten on 173 with 29 fours in only 255 minutes.[92][93][24]
    "Bradman scored 62, bowled attempting a pull shot to a ball that kept low,...." SilkTork *YES! 13:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Tweaked and will do more eventually with an eye to FAC. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. Paragraphing needs looking at. Some paragraphs are fairly short, and the paragraphing is not consistent.SilkTork *YES! 13:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Fixed. Apart from the bit about Middlesex because it was a one-off tour match and can't be grouped with the Test. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
  • Conclusion

An excellent and informative article. There are suggestions for consideration. I'll put this on hold for 7 days for the points above to be looked at. SilkTork *YES! 13:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Are there any specific concerns about tangential information. I have tried to keep context as to what the match situation was when Bradman came out to bat, and a sentence here and there about general team tactics when fielding, since Bradman is responsible for these. For the age part, I put that there, so that I wouldn't have to use weasel words about "much older" etc, I can just put the numbers on the record. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The age thing is awkward - I see the need to fully explain and justify the point about Bradman's age in relation to the rest of the team, though it comes over currently as a little too heavy. Not enough to prevent GA, and maybe not FA, but worth thinking on as a general point. You seem to have adressed the points, and this is a very informative and attractive article. Nice. Passed. SilkTork *YES! 16:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don_Bradman_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948/GA1&oldid=1091475385"