Talk:Jack Crossland/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• Any image for the lede?

• Unfortunately not; can't find a picture of him at all! Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• You may link English and Nottinghamshire

• I linked Nottinghamshire, but not English, per WP:OVERLINK. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• "His best year was in 1882,..." no need of "in"

• Fixed. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• In the article you are saying that his bowling average is 10.95 whereas in the infobox it is 12.48.

• Fixed. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Early career

• eight wickets and conceded 88 → eight wickets and conceded eighty-eight........... as you have done in the next sentence
• twenty eight → twenty-eight

• I've made this consistent, but in the other way, so all examples should now be of the form "eight for 88". Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Link innings

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lancashire professional

• Crossland's performances for Enfield ... Whay is Enfield?

• The cricket club he played for. Earlier in the article this is mentioned: "Crossland first gained employment as a professional cricketer in 1876, with Enfield Cricket Club." Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• twenty six → twenty-six

• See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ....at the Oval.[15] → I think this should be The Oval

• I know that the cricket style guide suggests that, but it's just bad grammar, and I disagree. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...touring Australians,[17] In the ..... In should be in

• Tidied up a little. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• claiming seven wickets for 72.[20] → "seventy-two" for consistency

• See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Throwing controversies

• ...he was never no balled by the umpires.[8] → it was never given no ball by the umpires.

• I'm not convinced that is an improvement, though I can see your point. I have reworded it, how is it now? Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...eight for 57... for consistency "fifty-seven"

• See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• A link to "gentlemen's"

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Termination of county cricket career

• he took four for 52 and three for 51 .....→ You are not consistant about numbering throughout the article.

• See above. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...at Old Trafford. → at the Old Trafford.

• Old Trafford is just referred to as such, without the definite article. It would be "the Old Trafford Cricket Ground" though.

Later life and career

• ...after his explusion.... → "expulsion"

• I thought it'd be a good cross between expulsion and explosion! Fixed. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• ...bowlers came to a close,... no need of "a"

• I disagree, in fact, I appear to have actually missed an "a" earlier in the sentence, which I've fixed. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Very smoothly written, I really appreciate your work! Zia Khan 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, as always, for your feedback and review. I think I have dealt with all of your comments, feel free to ping me if I've missed anything. I look forward to any further comments you might provide. Harrias ^talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Link CricketArchive

• Linked. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Why are refs 49 and 51 in Italic

• Because they are books. It's how the template renders it. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• In ref 49, what "(1980) and [1899]" means?

• It means that it is a 1980 publication of a book first published in 1899. Harrias ^talk 14:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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

   a: b:

7. Conclusion: Promoted to GA status, good work. Keep it up! Zia Khan 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: