Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Maurice Leyland/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Maurice Leyland

edit
Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I am hoping to go to FAC fairly soon. Any comments on prose, accessibility to the general reader, balance, etc, greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tintin
edit
  • "One Kent supporter wrote that Leyland was a "leaden-footed cart-horse"" - I would like a confirmation that you checked Lemmon directly, and not a secondary source that could have misinterpreted him. 'cause, I have across some writing to the effect that Leyland was a "cross-batted village greener" while Phil Mead was the "leaden footed cart-horse". The article where I came across it isn't particularly authentic, so if Lemmon is confirmed, he will easily override my source. Tintin 04:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bowling style : Slow left-arm orthodox" - an error in Cricinfo ?
  • "He was one of the first to bowl left-arm wrist-spin," - is "one of the first" a little bit of an exaggeration ?
And just remembered Charlie Llewellyn as a potential unorthodox wrist spinner (according to Cricinfo) but not sure how reliable that is. That still places Leyland among the first three that I can think of. Let me ponder some more. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cricketarchive has nobody listed as chinaman before Leyland's time. The earliest is some New Zealander named Stan Lay. But then none of Llewllyn, Kilner, Leyland and Achong are listed as chinamen either. Tintin 18:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roy Kilner explained, 'It's foreign stuff and you can't call it anything else" - just saying - the significance of Kilner saying that stuff (if he really did) is that he was dead long before the Achong incident happened. Tintin 16:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think the Achong thing is bollocks anyway. Probably just Walter Robins being his usual charming self. But the Kilner quote is from DCF Burton (and I'll attribute that in the text) writing in the 60s, and he hardly played with Leyland. However, others say that Kilner invented "chinamen", both the name and the delivery. Though I wonder if someone in Trinidad "invented" it before Achong. Maybe Victor Pascall? All very interesting (although it doesn't help Leyland much!) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there are various sources for the "foreign stuff", including Burton, the general Wisden obituary and possibly something from Bill Bowes, although it's opaquely written. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Crisco comments
edit
  • groundsman - link perhaps?
  • He played once, against Essex, scoring ten runs in his only innings, but this was his only appearance that year. - way to avoid repeating "only"?
  • and he was awarded his county cap. - how is cap related to potential?
  • It isn't usually, and I'm baffled why they did so here. Possibly for his fielding ability, which is unusual. But the sources are quiet. I think I've written it too strongly to read that he was awarded it for potential, so I've reworded it to avoid the impression that the two were linked. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • a successful batting side. - consisting of? (footnote maybe)
  • this team was one of Yorkshire's strongest, but that the team - team ... team
  • This environment, "was a hard school for a young cricketer, but Leyland thrived on such discipline, and he has never lost his laugh." - should have in-text attribution to the writer here.
  • the newspaper's cricket correspondent - who?
  • Leyland and Dolphin played a handful of matches for the MCC. Leyland played twice in November 1926 and once in February 1927 for the team. - repetitive
  • a side named "The Rest" and scored 102. - how many sides were there?
  • Several. In this case, it was a sort-of England second team, but teams such as this could be pretty strange, and rather than one "team" which played together, it was often "Who is available? Let 'em play!" It's hard so say (without OR) which was the case here. Hence the slightly awkward wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Skipping ahead ...
  • He also served as a representative of the paper manufacturers Thomas Owen - So Mitchell served as representative (check your sentence)
    1. Later life has "Leyland" 5 times
  • His bowling was extremely effective at times, but other players were used in the main spinner's role for Yorkshire in preference to him, and he was generally used as back-up, for example when a stubborn partnership need to be broken. - confusing

Thanks for the comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Like Leyland, the Yorkshire bowler Roy Kilner coached in India during 1927–28, but in doing so contracted a fever and died shortly after returning to England. - Could be read as if Leyland had died after going to India too (still "like Leyland" after all)
  • Chapman stood down from the final Test; although it is not clear why he did so, one possibility is that he wished to give as many members of the team as possible a chance to appear in the Tests. Alternatively, he may have felt that his batting form did not warrant a place in the team; whatever the reason, Leyland took his place. - Lots of semi-colons
  • he took five wickets in an innings - link to five-wicket haul?
  • After watching this last performance, the cricket writer Neville Cardus judged that Leyland had bowled well and with spirit on a wet pitch which favoured spin bowling, but that he lacked the accuracy and flight required in left-arm spin bowlers and exemplified by Rhodes, who missed that match with an injury. - rather long sentence
  • Watch out for an overabundance of Leyland. I see five in #Test regular alone (that section could also lose some "Test"s)
  • Leyland was not particularly successful. Assessing the tour in Wisden, Sydney Southerton wrote that Leyland "fared on the whole extremely well ... he had batted finely in the Test matches at Adelaide and Brisbane". - what's with the contrast?
  • Reworded. Basically, his figures are not good if looked at in terms of statistical success, but he scored runs in some very pressured circumstances. This hopefully comes across better now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ripe in technique, rich in experience, like granite in battle, he was in this season England's greatest batsman." England lost the series 2–1; the Australians were heavily dependent on the bowling of Clarrie Grimmett and Bill O'Reilly,[1] but Leyland began a spell of relative dominance over O'Reilly at a time when the latter was regarded as the best bowler in the world, and one of the best bowlers of all time. - Also quite long
  • Ah can tell thi one thing now for certain ... Ah's got thee where Ah wants thi, Bill—and Ah thinks tha knows it. - as in the original, misspellings and all?
  • Oh, I do love when newspapers and writers reproduce accents phonetically </sarcasm> (Seriously though, some of the most hateful news reports I read from the May 1998 riots of Indonesia were those which pretended to be sympathetic, but reproduced an overdone pseudo-Chinese accent, with l's instead of r's and everything). MOS-wise, if that's how Cardus wrote it, that's how it should stay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • missed a substantial amount of cricket in 1937 with a broken finger, - how'd he break it?
  • Bradford League - notable?
Comments from Tim riley
edit
  • Lead
    • "he may have been a leading bowler" – I think this needs to be "he might have been…"
  • Established county cricketer
    • "In his history of Yorkshire" – on balance I'd make this "…of the Yorkshire club" or "Yorkshire CCC" or some such.
    • "Anthony Woodhouse suggests" – presumably he does more than suggest: I imagine he states it.
  • Test debut and selection for Australian tour
    • "then in mid-July" – "then" is not a conjunction, and you need a stronger punctuation mark than a comma before it here. I'd make it a semicolon.
  • Bodyline tour
    • "Other Australian commentators had a more favourable opinion towards Leyland." – I'd be inclined to omit the last two words.
  • Peak years
    • "at a time when he was regarded as the best bowler in the world" – it is of course pretty clear that the "he" is O'Reilly (silly way to spell Riley) but for absolute clarity perhaps you should say "at a time when the latter was regarded …."
    • "outfielder" – needs either a blue link or a brief explanatory footnote for the uninitiated
    • "toured West Indies" – looks a bit odd without a definite article, to my eye
    • "lumbago—[6]" – I think, but don't take my word for it, that the usual rule of citation after punctuation mark is suspended for em-dashes.
    • "with injury—[5][62]" – ditto
    • "England could only score 76 for nine" – of which Leyland scored how many?
  • Style, technique and personality
    • "His use of the cut shot was mistrusted by some Yorkshire critics" – and possibly colleagues: when coaching at Harrow, Rhodes forbade the boys ever to cut as it was risky. Their objection, "But, Wilfred, a cut's the greatest fun," was met with the unanswerable reply, "Cricket's not meant to be foon".
    • "His bowling was extremely effective at times…" – There's a "main" and a "mainly" in the same sentence; the latter could be "generally" or similar.
    • "he may have developed" – as in the lead, I think you want "might" for "may" here.
    • "alternate theories" – you mean "several" or "many", I think.

That's my meagre gleaning. This is another top-notch cricket biography, and I look forward to seeing it at FAC. It was a pleasure to read it now, and I shall enjoy reading it again then. – Tim riley (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript on referencing format. You sometimes add the date of publication and sometimes don't: very proper for Cardus, as there are two of his books cited, but Woodhouse, as at refs 10 or 91? Tim riley (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I dated Woodhouse as he was also the author of the 2004 ODNB article. I'm not entirely sure it's necessary, but tend to do it to avoid any confusion. However, I'll happily take it out if it looks inconsistent. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps best to leave as is and see what the FAC referencing experts say. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and kind comments. I'd say something nice here, but having read the reply on your talk page, when God's Own County was insulted by someone from the wrong side of the Pennines, I'll say nowt! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've given us A C MacLaren, so I shall refrain, pro tem, from making rude remarks about the opposition. Tim riley (talk) 19:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
edit
  • "Leyland was born in Bilton, an area of Harrogate, to Edward (Ted) Leyland and Mercy Lambert." -- Was Leyland born out of wedlock? If not, you could word it like this: "to Mercy (née Lambert) and Edward (Ted) Leyland.
  • I would link Lancashire for our non-English readers.
  • "In the latter part of the 1922 season Leyland played..." -- pronoun would be better here seeing as we mention only him in the previous sentence.
  • "In the latter part of the 1922 season Leyland played more regularly, replacing Norman Kilner in the team. Although his batting figures were unimpressive..." -- Who? Leyland or Kilner? I would replace with a Leyland pronoun in the first sentence and change the pronoun in the second sentence with its noun counterpart.
  • "and the outbreak of war in 1939" -- Why do we mention both the war and 1939?
  • I've been pulled up for lack of precision using "war" before, so I went for the date too. I'd cut the mention of the war but for the fact that he would probably have continued to score lots for a few more years. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the end of July, the MCC named the team to tour Australia for the 1928–29 Ashes series. Leyland was named in the team..." -- Not essential, but could we combine this: "At the end of July, Leyland was picked for the team who toured Australia for the 1928–29 Ashes series". Or, "At the end of July, the MCC named the team to tour Australia for the 1928–29 Ashes series, in which Leyland was included". Or something like that. It would also do away with the second "named" which we currently have.
  • "Leyland's selection was controversial in the south of England, and particularly in Kent." -- This would work just as well without the "and" here.
  • "Leyland began 1932 in similarly poor touch." -- I take it "touch" is a cricketing term? I want to say "form" here for some reason. In fact, looking at the previous word, this says "form" so this maybe incorrect to use it again.

Everything between looks very nice.

Last years as a cricketer – and onwards

  • Why do we link "sergeant instructor" but not "lieutenant" immediately after it?
  • Between his army duties, he played cricket in the Bradford League, and played for various wartime teams, including ones representing the army.[5] In 1945, he played some non-first-class games for teams representing Yorkshire and a first-class game for Yorkshire against Lancashire.[5] -- Why do you repeat ref 5 in close succession? Surely only the last one will do in light of there being no bold claims or quotes?
  • I don't think we have had "wrist spin" link so far in the body.
  • I'm not convinced the caption in the image requires a full stop.
  • "At times, his desire..." -- Leyland I'm sure, but we do talk of Cardus before.
  • To satisfy my morbid side, I don't suppose we know how he died?
Lead
  • In the interests of aesthetics, could we break the huge second paragraph up at all?
  • "Maurice Leyland (20 July 1900 – 1 January 1967) was a cricketer..." Would we be correct in giving his nationality before "cricketer"?

Lead prose looks very good. Another winner from the Sarastro stable. If you carry on making these interesting articles, then by next summer, I will probably become interested enough to start playing the game for real! Good work! -- CassiantoTalk 09:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and kind comments. By all means play cricket, but far more important that you follow Yorkshire. With scoundrels like that Riley chap supporting The Enemy, we need all the help we can get! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that Yorks CCC need all the help they can get, but pray refrain from attempting to lure innocent Essex men into the clutches of Headingley. I'm sure there's something in the Manual of Style about this. Tim riley (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Innocent!? Before Sarastro came along with his FA cricket articles, we in Essex thought the bats were used for something else! -- CassiantoTalk 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Sahara4u
edit
  • ...was Wisden Cricketer of the Year in 1929. → was on of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1929.
  • After military service in the First World War, Leyland became a professional cricketer for Harrogate between 1918 and 1920,[2][3] from where he made appearances for the Yorkshire Council,[4] and Yorkshire's second team,[2] for whom he bowled regularly; when he reached the first team, he bowled infrequently in his first seasons.[5]→ A very long sentence.
  • ..he was dismissed for 0 by Herman Griffith in his only innings.[30] → zero, there may be others
  • Most of the quotes in sentences start with capital letters??
  • Link dismissal
  • publisher for refs #2 and #6

Zia Khan 23:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Giants2008
edit
  • This is the typical high-quality cricket bio that I see on a regular basis. The only glitch I noticed was the all caps in the title of reference 74. Otherwise, it was a great read and I look forward to seeing it go to FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Brianboulton
edit

The galaxy of earlier reviewing talent hasn't left me much to get my teeth into, so here are my usual nitpicks and quibbles, plus a few sugggestions for minor improvements. I'm about half-way through, and hope to finish tonight.

Lead
  • As he was registered at birth as "Morris" and adopted the "Maurice" spelling later, I think this needs to be apparent in the first line of the lead rather than in a footnote. See Georges Bizet for a possible way of doing this.
  • Adopted the Bizet way, but left in the note for the reference, and because it is not quite clear otherwise. (Basically, his parents changed their mind, it seems, and were calling him Maurice by 1911) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would qualify the statement "He was successful with the ball...", since he had little bowling success in Tests. Perhaps: "Outside Tests, he had some success as a bowler..."
Early life and career
  • We have "around this time" and "during this period" in close succession, but without a clear indication of the timeframe you are talking about. The first is probably OK, but I'd be a bit more specific in the second case, e.g. "During the early 1920s, ..."
  • "scoring 52 not out against Leicestershire, averaging just over 19." – reads a bit confusingly (the two achievements are quite separate). I suggest: "scoring 52 not out against Leicestershire and averaging just over 19 for the season".
Established county cricketer
  • Will readers unfamiliar with cricket jargon understand "he aggregated four figures"? I suggest: "...reached 1,000 runs in first-class cricket, a total he exceeded in each..." etc
  • "He scored seven fifties and averaged 27.89" – that is, in 1923. This needs to be clearer, e.g "In 1923 he scored... etc
  • Quote marks round "gained valuable experience" are surely unnecessary (common wording)
  • "By the end of the 1926 season, Leyland had established himself as one of the most reliable batsmen in the Yorkshire team.[14] He scored 1,561 runs at 39.02 and hit five centuries." To avoid any confusion in the minds of those less famiiar with cricket, I'd reword this to: "By the end of the 1926 season, in which he scored 1,561 runs at 39.02 and hit five centuries, Leyland had established himself as one of the most reliable batsmen in the Yorkshire team."
Test debut and selection for Australian tour
  • "In later years, it was rumoured that Percy Chapman, the captain of the MCC team, was jealous of Woolley and responsible for his omission." I wonder if this conjecture is worth including in an article about Leyland.
  • It might be worth mentioning that the 1928 Tests were the West Indies' first, and that the matches were not considered of any great account at the time.
  • It's not quite right to say that the first five positions in the England batting line-up were settled, since as you say Mead (no. 3 in the first match) was thereafter dropped. The six who held their positions until the final Test were Hobbs, Sutcliffe, Hammond, Jardine, Hendren and Chapman (not always in that order). A little rephrasing, perhaps.
  • In discussing Chapman's motives for standing down from the 5th Test, it might be worth including that England were 4–0 up in the series at the time. Australian readers may wish to be reminded of this.
Test regular
  • The match was against Oxford University, not Oxford
  • I am slightly unhappy with the wording "left-handed googly (wrist spin) bowling". First, I thought the left-handed equivalent of a googly was called a "chinaman". Secondly, the wording suggests that googly and wrist spin are one and the same thing. I don't have this Cardus book; can you check exactly what he said?
  • I took out the mention of wrist spin; Cardus merely mentions the googly, that was my mistake (and I'm none too sure why I put it in). The term "chinaman" was not in use at this time, so he didn't call it that. There was a little more he said (I think about Roy Kilner), but I don't have the book to hand, and I can't check it for a day or two. I'll have another look when I can check the book. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to confirm, Cardus said that Leyland was "trying his fingers at a 'googly'", and that Kilner had predicted that "left-handed 'googly'" bowling was going to be the next big thing. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you say: "hit his highest score against Lancashire" do you mean the highest score of his career, his highest score of the season, or his highest against that particular county?
  • Likewise, does his "best bowling performance" refer to his career or just to the season?

More later. Brianboulton (talk) 20:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest
Bodyline tour
  • "but was not selected for any of the three-Test series between England and New Zealand." The words "any of" are awkward in this phrasing. Suggest omit, or rephrase "for ant of the Tests in the three-match series between..." etc
  • Try to avoid "...Essex. Essex..."
  • I'd say that 102 runs in 6 overs is unusually fast scoring for any period.
  • "In total, he contributed only 45 runs to the partnership". According to the Cricinfo record the stand amounted to 149 runs in all. It might be useful to add this, as otherwise "only 45" is fairly meaningless.
Peak years
  • "In the game against Leicestershire..." – Yorks played Leicestershire twice in 1933. The match you refer to was the second, at Leicester in August
  • "Leyland only played in the first Test" → "Leyland played only in the first Test" – and I would say "his single innings" rather than "his only innings", to avoid repetition of "only"
  • "...but was far more successful in Test cricket". With what is the comparison being made – far more successful than what?
  • A benefit of £3600 was pretty high for the times, perhaps one of the highest up to 1934? If there are any comparable statistics available, it might be worth mentioning this.
  • Hirst had £3700 in 1904, Macaulay £1633 in 1931, £4106 for Kilner in 1925. So it was good, but not a record. Worth mentioning any/all of these? Or, I might be able to dig out a little more on this to compare a little more systematically. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account of Leyland's performances in the 1936–37 series is somewhat muddled. It mentions his century in the first Test, then jumps to the second innings of the third Test before referring back to the first and second Tests. Then on to the first innings of the third Test – you see what I mean? And his series record of 441 runs at 55.12 is given in the middle of the muddle.
Last years as a cricketer
  • "...but Wisden commented: "The inclusion once again of Leyland was a move which yielded splendid results."[73] The "but" is inappropriate, as there is no connection with the first part of the sentence. I suggest you remove the "but", then make the sentence beginning "Wisden commented..." the opening sentence of the next paragraph.
  • "but this was his final match". Add "for England".
  • "and later as lieutenant". I'd say: "and was later commissioned as a lieutenant"
Style, technique and personality
  • "His bowling was extremely effective at times" – I would drop the "extremely"
Later life
  • "After his retirement from the Yorkshire team, Leyland returned to play for Harrogate until 1950,[94] and then he became chief coach, along with Arthur Mitchell, at Yorkshire in 1950". Needs tweaking, to avoid the repetition of the year 1950.

General point: you need to check out the red error messages in the references (minor format breaches, no doubt)

Got them. There was a space where there should be none. Sigh. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have. Well done in making Leyland a little bit interesting (bet you couldn't do that with R.E.S. Wyatt). One interesting thing about Leyland is his evident resemblance to a much later Yorkshire hero, Darren Gough. At least, I can see it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you mean about Gough (or I may just be humouring you to keep a good reviewer happy!). I don't find Leyland too bad. Wyatt is on my list and is perhaps a more interesting story than he was a personality. My personal low would be Phil Mead, about whom I would find it hard to say anything interesting. Thanks as ever for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I await Wyatt with interest...zzzzzz Brianboulton (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Wisden was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Maurice_Leyland/archive1&oldid=1079638445"