Talk:Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/GA1
GA Review
editArticle (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Johnson's most successful match with the ball was against Gloucestershire, taking match figures of 11/100.
I think you just said batting should 11 for 100, not 11/100. And then that would apply throughout the rest of the article.
- I don't understand this comment YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- Never mind. Noble Story (talk • contributions)
Johnson had been a regular member of the Australian Test team since the Second World War, so he was a natural selection. Ref? Especially for "he was a natural selection."
- Scuppered, not necessary and obvious. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
When Australia batted, Johnson came in at No. 10 and made an unbeaten 12 as Australia declared at 8/462. Should number be abbreviated (throughout the whole article)?
- I don't see a problem with it because it is a notational type of information... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
It was a chance to gain a psychological advantage. Sounds like synthesis to me.
- Added two references. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The pair put on 165 before Miller fell, quickly followed by Johnson at 8/512, trapped leg before wicket by off spinner Jim Laker for 80,[18] but not before lifting Laker three times into the crowd for six. "...but not before lifting Laker three times into the crowd" He physically lifted Laker?
- Fixed. It is normal in cricket to use this kind of shorthand and refer to the player as his actions, anyway ... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
In the following match against Nottinghamshire, Johnson took 1/26 and made a duck in the first innings. Duck should be wikilinked.
The pacemen shot out the hosts for 86 in 46.4 overs and Australia then declared at 5/549. "Shot out"?
However, Australia's lower order wagged and they eventually reached 350 on the second morning. "Wagged"?
Johnson took the last two wickets for fall on the second day, having Alec Coxon caught and bowled for 19 and then having Jim Laker caught behind for 28 after the pair had put on 41. What does it mean, "last two wickets for fall"?
Bradman brought on Johnson had delivered only three overs to this point, the rest of the proceedings having been through fast bowlers. "Bradman brought on Johnson had delivered..." is grammatically incorrect.
Edrich and Compton came in and were pinned down, but after 45 minutes, Compton charged Johnson and heaved him to the leg side for a boundary. Again, he physically "heaved" him?
He bowled more overs than anyone but Bill Johnston allowing Bradman to ease the workload on his pace spearheads Ray Lindwall and Keith Miller, allowing them to conserve their energy for the Tests.
Two "allowing"s here. Doesn't sound good.
- Is it? The sentence looks the same. Noble Story (talk • contributions)
- I hope it has now. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Is it? The sentence looks the same. Noble Story (talk • contributions)
Having been a regular member of the Test team in recent times,[19] and having taken 29 wickets at 12.03 in his four games on tour,[1] Johnson and his spin bowling partner was Colin McCool, a leg spinner, as in the match against Worcestershire.
"Johnson and his spin bowling partner was Colin McCool" is grammatically incorrect.
- The sentence hasn't changed.
- I hope it has now. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- The sentence hasn't changed.
Johnson usually batted at No. 7 or No. 8, although he was notably used as a makeshift opener in the Third Test and scored an aggressive 74 batting at No. 3 in the run-chase against Hampshire.[3][5][7][8][10][13][14][15][16][17][18][22][25][28][40][41][48][49][66][67][68][69][70][74][75][77][78][80][81][82][85][86][87][88]
I would suggest you make one ref, containing all the URLs of these other refs. However, if you can't find a single ref to support this point, is it really all that important?
- Is that compulsory? Because the refs are already used in different places beforehand and would cause some references to be written out twice?? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- It looks rather bad to have however many references all strung together like that. And as I said, "if you can't find a single ref to support this point, is it really all that important?" Noble Story (talk • contributions)
- The classic text on the 1948 tour is that by Fingleton and is by far the most comprehensive one out there. However there is no separate text or one that summarises every single player's role individually (while this article and family of articles is about individual contributions ot the tour), which is why there is no data summary all in one piece, about the batting summary of a bowler, which is why I had to piece it together. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, since the FAC seems to have reached no suitable conclusion, I guess I will let it pass. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- The classic text on the 1948 tour is that by Fingleton and is by far the most comprehensive one out there. However there is no separate text or one that summarises every single player's role individually (while this article and family of articles is about individual contributions ot the tour), which is why there is no data summary all in one piece, about the batting summary of a bowler, which is why I had to piece it together. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
- It looks rather bad to have however many references all strung together like that. And as I said, "if you can't find a single ref to support this point, is it really all that important?" Noble Story (talk • contributions)
Noble Story (talk • contributions) 06:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Final Review
editI think this now passes all the GA criteria. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 08:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)