Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lionel Palairet/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 22 November 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Lionel Palairet

edit

Lionel Palairet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 14:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a while since I've been to FAC, but I have spent some time tidying this article, and I think it is now just about as ready I can get it. Most of the eyes that have looked over this article so far have been ones that are reasonably knowledgeable about cricket, so it could certainly do with a jargon check. As always, all comments and thoughts are eagerly anticipated! Harrias talk 14:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: I commented extensively at the PR, and had few concerns then or now. From a cricketing and sourcing viewpoint, this one is absolutely spot on, but I may have missed a little jargon here and there. But it certainly meets the criteria. Nice work, and it would be good to have a few more Somerset cricketers at FAC. Just a few last little points below which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I still have a few reservations about ""placed him fifth amongst his peers". But perhaps it's just me.
  • "The strength of Palairet's off side strokes blunted the tactic, and helped him to score more effectively": Still not quite sure about this. What about "The strength of Palairet's off side strokes helped him to score effectively against this tactic". (And, as an aside, I still suspect, knowing CB Fry, that his comment may have been a little dig about leg-side play. But maybe I'm being uncharitable)
  • I notice that when the comment about the "modern game" were removed, so was the mention that he favoured "lofted" shots. Perhaps that part is worth keeping as a point about his style. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I also offered comments at the PR, and think this meets the high standards that have been established by our batch of cricket bio FAs. This will make another nice addition to that group. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment. Surely "nought" or similar should replace the three instances of "zero". EddieHugh (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why. The correct expression would be a duck, but I'm not sure that is encyclopaedic, and zero is as accurate as anything else. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember reading or hearing "zero" used in relation to cricket, at least in the UK. EddieHugh (talk) 10:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Sarastro1 says, generally "a duck" would be used, but the sentence flow would be badly affected to wedge that in. I'll have a look, but I don't see any advantage to "nought" over "zero". Harrias talk 12:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is a well-written article and meets the FA standards. I don't have any issue with the article, I kept an eye on the article since it was at GAN and PR. Zia Khan 00:16, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are numerous small prose glitches in the "Personal life" section, which is the only one I have read so far.

  • Unwarranted use of mdashes in the first sentence. The enclosed phrase is a natural part of the sentence; commas are the appropriate punctuation here.
  • A colon, not a semicolon, should follow "two children"
  • No comma should follow "Henry Edward Hamilton"
  • "In addition to cricket, he also maintained..." The word "also" is redundant, given "In addition to..."
  • The words in quotes – "admits that..." etc – are presented as though they were Palairet's, which they are not. A correct format would be "a 1901 profile of Palairet in Baily's Magazine of Sports and Pastimes records that foxhunting "holds the first place in his heart." Or do a complete paraphrase, e.g. "...records that foxhunting was his primary sporting interest".
  • "He captained Devon either side of the First World War, from 1914 through until 1926, and was also president of the union from 1923 until 1932." You need to be clearer that captained Devon at golf, and that the "union" is the Devon County Golf Union – the lower case might mislead.
  • "He developed the idea of an inter-club team championship within Devon, and donated the trophy, which remains named the Palairet Trophy." Clunky, avoidable repetition of "trophy"
  • Not clear when Palairet served as the Earl of Devon'a land agent. The sentence begins "During the First World War..."
    • Unfortunately, I can't find a source that gives me a definitive answer. He certainly was in 1905, as well as during the First World War. The assumption would obviously be that he continued in the role throughout, but I have nothing to verify that, so I can't really be much clearer I'm afraid. Harrias talk 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The words "for whom he served as a land agent" can be deleted from this section, as you have mentioned his employment earlier in the article. Also the Earl of Devon has been linked earlier. See my further comment on the "Later county career" section. Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite a few issues for one short section, and there are likely to be similar problems in other parts of the text, so I don't think the article is ready for promotion just yet. I will review the remaining sections over the next day or so. Brianboulton (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far Brian. I'm unlikely to be able to do much on this until the weekend, but if you find the time to review the remaining sections before then, please feel free: a long list won't overwhelm me! Regards, Harrias talk 06:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may have already had it on your list, Brian, but if you could include a source review with your additional comments that'd be great. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll do the sources review. Instead of leaving a long list of prose quibbles, I am copyediting the article, and expect to leave a much shorter list of issues I can't resolve myself. Brianboulton (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I knew very little about Palairet before reading this article, and you are to be congratulated on finding out this much about him, in the absence of a full-length biography. Definitely a commendable research effort. However, I found the prose rather ragged at times – a bit surprising, this, given a GA review and several supports at FAC. The chief recurring problems, which I have mainly copyedited, were: beginning new paragraphs with pronouns; misuse of colons and confusion with semicolons; tendencies to "sportspeak" – for example, batsmen are not "propelled" towards certain totals. I can't guarantee that my copyedits have caught all these problems, and a final check might be useful. There are a few issues, listed below, that I need to raise with you:

Early life
  • Readers may wonder how someone who lived in Dorset and was educated in Derbyshire qualified "on the basis residence" to play for Somerset.
    • Indeed: especially as the quoted source does not actually mention it. In the absence of a source that specifically lists this (I'm sure there was one, but can I find it??) I have removed the bit about his qualification. If I find the relevant source, I'll add it back in with better explanation. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
University and county cricketer
  • Another reviewer has raised the matter of "zero". This term is not part of cricket's idiom and should not be used, particularly in a potential featured article. "Nought" is the usual formal term: "a duck" is perhaps too informal for an encyclopedia (though I see you have used it twice). There are other formulations that can be used in appropriate circumstances, e.g. "out without scoring", but "zero" has to go (three usages all told).
  • "his first half-century" – I imagine you mean in first-class cricket.
  • Link Lord Hawke at first mention (he is linked in a later section)
  • The term "varsity match" is English public school slang, and shouldn't be used in an encyclopedia
  • "out for a duck" → "out without scoring" (see above)?
  • You say that Palairet's selections for the 1893 University Match were questioned, but don't say on what basis. Why were his selections controversial?
Leading amateur batsman
  • Perhaps you should explain that "Arthur Shrewsbury's England XI" was not a representative side
  • "including his brother" – if not before, this is the time when the brother, R.C.N. should be introduced by name.
  • "there was some suggestion that but for this he would likely have appeared for England against Australia that summer." Two points: "there was some suggestion" – was this contemporary press speculation, or was it the retrospective opinion of later commentators? Also: "he would likely have appeared for England". The word "likely" seems unnecessary, given that you are reporting a "suggestion" of something that might have happened.
  • "In 1901, Palairet also scored big hundreds against Lancashire, 182 runs and an opening partnership of 225 with Braund; and Sussex, 194 runs and an opening partnership of 258 with Talbot Lewis." This is almost impossible to decipher, and needs to be rewritten as something more comprehensible. Note: "big hundreds" is journalistic cricketspeak and shouldn't appear in an encyclopedia.
Later county career
  • I would specify "Bath cricket festival" (with lower case f) rather than "Bath Festival", which term usually means the Bath International Music Festival
  • "The cricket historian David Foot describes 1904 and the subsequent few seasons as undistinguished" - undistinguished for whom: Palairet individually? Somerset collectively? The whole of cricket? Please clarify.
  • You mention en passant "his work as a land agent for the Earl of Devon". It would be useful to know when this began - I had been wondering for some time how Palairet earned his living, given that he played as an amateur.
    • From what I read, I imagine that this was one of those amenable jobs that tended to fall to well-connected sportsmen. In the absence of anything more detailed you can't really add to it – though I recommend you change "focussing on" to "to concentrate on". Brianboulton (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You include a summary of his career batting statistics – why not his bowling? He took 143 wickets, after all.
Style and technique
  • "...a key factor in his not developing such a range of leg side shots." Reads very clumsily. Perhaps "a key factor in limiting his range of leg side shots.
  • "Although considered a stylish batsman, David Foot describes Palairet..." David Foot was considered a stylish batsman?
  • The sentences about his Harlequin cap and his aloofness are not really part of "style and technique", and could perhaps be inserted elsewhere in the article.

I have already commented on the Personal life section. One further point: there is very little in the article about Palairet's activities outside cricket, no doubt reflecting the paucity of sources. I did find that he played football for the Corinthians, a well-known and high-class amateur side at the turn of the 20th century (they once beat Manchester United 11–3). He was also a competent long-distance runner in his Oxford days, and represented the university in the three miles event. I can give you sources for these snippets.

Thanks for all your copyediting work on the article: I'll try and learn from my mistakes for future articles! Just to quickly respond to this point: the end of the University and county cricketer section mentions that he played for Corinthians, and that he ran the three mile race already: do your sources go into any more depth worth mentioning? Harrias talk 18:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, I overlooked that you already had this information. My source does not really give anything more than you have. In a long chapter in his autobiography on football and the Corinthians, C.B. Fry mentions dozens of names of players – but not Palairet, who may not have played many matches. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a sources review when the above points are answered. Please ping when you're through. Brianboulton (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, it's been almost a week since these comments were raised. The review as a whole has been open almost six weeks and needs to conclude so pls address as a matter of urgency. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, I'm just working on some of it at the moment. I have a baby daughter, so I'm trying to steal time where I can, but it is in short supply. I don't offer this as an excuse, merely a reason, and if the time comes to close this, don't worry about having to do so. If it comes to that, I'll just work on the article and then renominate. Harrias talk 13:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite understand, we're all volunteers and RL has to come first. For future reference, if you're unable to work on a nomination for a while then you can always leave a quick note to that effect, if feasible. Anyway, let's see how you go over the next couple of days... Best, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'll be honest, I somewhat underestimated fatherhood! I kept thinking I'd have a few minutes to work on a few points, and then just didn't! But yes, I'll see what I can do over the weekend: I have no real free time in the working week. Harrias talk 13:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with a number of the points, and some are still left to do. I have marked those above, more as an indicator to me than anything else. Brianboulton, I have left a few comments on some of your points that I would appreciate further guidance on if possible. Hopefully I will get some more work done on this tomorrow. My thanks for your help. Harrias talk 16:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton, I think I have now completed each of the points you have raised, though there are a couple of points on which I am unsure if I have truly improved the article with my change! I look forward to your further comments and sources review. Harrias talk 12:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have adequately answered my points, except that the non-representative nature of "Arthur Shrewsbury's XI" still needs to clarified. Leaning to support now; I will try to do the sources review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote at the end of the sentence: is that a bit too far removed? Harrias talk 07:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That will do fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • In general, sources look of appropriately high quality and reliability. See below for one at which I have raised an eyebrow.
  • Limited spotchecking reveals no apparent propblems with copyvio.
  • I have added OCLC numbers for the pre-ISBN books. For future reference, these numbers can generally be found by searching the Worldcat site. The "cite book" template has an "oclc= " field.
  • Ref 29 should be in short citation form, to be consistent with 69 and 73
  • Ref 78 – the eyebrow-raiser. Is there any reason for choosing an obscure Jamaican local newspaper as your source for the fact, widely acknowledged in all the main cricketing histories, that the 1902 Australians were one of the strongest teams to visit these shores?
  • Ref 93 needs page numbers for the Palairet photos - or at least for one or two, as examples.
  • Ref 101 is a dead link

These should be relatively straightforward to fix. Congratulations on the baby daughter, by the way, and I hope there are not too many sleepless nights. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tidied the references as requested, and removed the dead link altogether, all it supported was the fact that Palairet donated the trophy itself. I can't find another reference for this at the moment, but given that it doesn't seem a highly contentious point, I'm not sure if it is necessary to remove that information? Ref 78: it is a strange one, isn't it! I fear this was me being lazy. I knew that the 1902 team was considered very strong, and I knew it was mentioned in a number of my books, but rather than hunt through them for a solid reference, I Googled it – busted. My cricket books are currently inaccessible, but I'll try to delve out a stronger cricketing reference for this in the next few days. Harrias talk 21:55, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure you can be trusted to replace 78 with something more conventional. I don't think the information about the trophy is important enough to warrant searching for a source, and I'd be inclined to leave it out, as you have now. I believe the article is now in good shape, and am pleased to add my support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- Harrias, if you haven't been to FAC for a while (a belated welcome back in that case!) then you may or may not be aware of Ucucha's handy duplicate link checker. I found a few instances with it, some of which may be justified if there's a lot of space between first and subsequent links, but pls review any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that: I've added it to my toolbox! I've removed a number of duplicated links thanks to it, though I have left a couple in place that I feel are justified. Harrias talk 15:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Lionel_Palairet/archive1&oldid=1086353456"