Talk:Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The was followed by a match against the Gentlemen of England. The what was followed?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• For the sentence beginning Ring had limited opportunities…, is there no better way to cite this than with 34(!) consecutive notes?

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Placing on hold until the one sentence noted above is correct. Otherwise meets the GA requirements. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the sentence. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For the 34 cites, unfortunately, the cricket website software only has the means for dynamically building a stats page of breakdown of performances, batting positions, patterns etc for Test/ODI matches between two countries. For other first-class matches, it does not have this functionality. So I had to look up all 34 match records to verify he was always 9/10/11 in the batting order. The Test match search engine would have automatically created a page that summarised "Batting performances by position..." YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a single note with all 34 links might be better? As with your other nomination, my apologies for the delay in reassessment.— Bellhalla (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)