Talk:Len Hutton/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: One found and fixed. [1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: None found - note that all of the cricinfo.com refs redirect to espncricinfo.com. You may wish to fix these as the old site may go dead at some point. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   However, the level of expectation surrounding him led critics to regard this as no great achievement. However, he took part several big partnerships through the season, including one of 230 with Sutcliffe, but endured a run of low scores in May and June. Successive sentences starting with "However" - rather clumsy phrasing. Done

   Hutton received more criticism for his negative approach, but cricket writer believes Hutton needed to establish his defensive technique first in order to have his subsequently successful career. Which "cricket writer"? Done

   ''Former Australian player, working as a journalist, criticised Hutton for trying to play front foot shots in the match rather than back foot shots. Which former "Australian player"? Done

   None of the amateur county captains were considered to of sufficient ability to represent England in a Test, or were too inexperienced to be captain. Badly phrased, please recast, the second clause appears as a double negative. Done

   however, his work with Fenner's limited the time he could devote to watching players and he did committees. "he did committees"? Done

   I made a number of minor copy-edits.[2]

   Article complies with MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Article is well referenced. References check out, are RS.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article covers major aspects of the subject's career, without excessive minutiae.

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

   I adjusted the brightness and contrast of File:Morris Hutton.jpg to improve the definition.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   On hold for seven days for prose issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

   Well that has to be the shortest hold in history! Congratulations on a thorough and detailed article which I am happy to list as a GA. I am sorry that you had to wait sop long for a review. Suggest that you get a peer review and then take to WP:GAC. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've fixed the prose issues you have pointed out (and one or two others). Not quite sure how they slipped through... --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)