- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Jim Laker
- ... that Jim Laker did not become a spin bowler until he played on coconut matting strips in Egypt during World War II? Source: Hill, Alan (1998). Jim Laker: A Biography. London: Andre Deutsch Ltd. p. 27. ISBN 978-02-33050-43-0.
- ALT1:... that Richie Benaud re-modelled his style and attitude as a bowler on those of Jim Laker? Source: Benaud, Richie (2005). My Spin on Cricket. London: Hodder & Stoughton. p. 169. ISBN 978-03-40833-93-3.
- ALT2:... that Jim Laker could make a cricket ball buzz when he imparted spin onto it? Sources: Sobers, Garfield (2003). My Autobiography. London: Headline Publishing Group. p. 200. ISBN 978-07-55310-07-4. Arlott, John (1984). Arlott on Cricket. London: Harper Collins. p. 261. ISBN 978-00-02180-82-5.
- Reviewed: Cerro Overo
Improved to Good Article status by No Great Shaker (talk). Self-nominated at 11:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC).
- Review. This is a recent Good Article nominated in time. QPQ has been done. The article is interesting and the prose is good. Alt0 is good to go. I've struck Alt1 because it would be confusing to a wider audience and it isn't supported properly by the refs. Alt2 is making the assertion that he could make the ball buzz, but in the article it appears to be discussing a single occurrence of buzzing. For this alt to be considered you'd need to address this in the article. Desertarun (talk) 08:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. I think the article is clear, however, that Laker would frequently produce a sound as he spun the ball. It isn't about a single occurrence as Arlott mentions batsmen (plural) and Sobers is talking in general terms. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I've struck Alt2 because I just don't get it. This is good to go with Alt0. Desertarun (talk) 09:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to go with ALT0 but I don't think "I just don't get it" is a valid reason for striking out ALT2. Perhaps a second opinion on that? No Great Shaker (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't get your explanation of why you think the article and hook are aligned. I've removed the tick and requesting a new reviewer. Desertarun (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm happy to go with ALT0 but I don't think "I just don't get it" is a valid reason for striking out ALT2. Perhaps a second opinion on that? No Great Shaker (talk) 10:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
In that case a new reviewer needs to make up their own mind about ALT1 and ALT2 so I am restoring both. Desertarun, if you really "don't get" articles, hooks and rationales you need to think very carefully about whether DYK is the right place for you. All three of these hooks have been taken from the text of a GA-rated article, they did not present any problems for the GA reviewer and the meaning of each is clear enough for DYK purposes. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Edit conflict
I've re-read and Alt2 is OK. Approving Alt0 and Alt2. Desertarun (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks, but let me know if there are any questions. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
