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 Karanacs 00:39, 5 August 2009 [1].

---

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

• Featured article review/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

This GA has gone through a Peer Review with Brianboulton (talk · contribs)... YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 18:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

• Done; thanks. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.
• I could not decipher the Statistical note section; is there some clearer way to format that? Without understanding what's going on I have a vague suspicion that this bit is WP:OR.

Eubulides (talk) 23:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I think YM was driven to this formulation by the demands of unbending peer reviewers (no names mentioned), who objected to the elongated reference strings that disfigured the text in earlier versions of this article. The precedent is Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, recently promoted FA, in which this format is used. Brianboulton (talk) 09:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem with that, but if YM could just explain here the function of it, it would aid the comprehension of us FA reviewers. SGGH ^ping! 09:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just moves the big group ref to its own section so that it isn't in the main text. N-1 links to the bottom and then under the N1 there are 30 odd refs YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the first pic as it won't get past Jappalang anyway. Secondly, does the second one need an alt, because the layout of graph is already in the caption anyway as the caption is needed to explain what the data is already. The last part is not OR. Ring batted at No 9/10/11 most of the time and this can be seen by looking at the data sheet for each match and seeing that he is one of the last three names in most of them YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Described the graph YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:43, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I tweaked the description. Eubulides (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support –
• Watch for those awkward with and -ing combinations. I see two in the lead alone, making me think that it's worth doing a general audit for them.
• Also a wordy "in order to" in the lead. Check for that as well, and see if any more can be safely removed.
• Overlooked for selection: Old Trafford link goes to the wrong Old Trafford. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Charlie Barnett is a disambiguation link. Giants2008 (17–14) 14:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done all YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 08:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't entirely happy with the writing, although this is definitely within reach of promotion on that count. Here are a few random suggestions:

• "Along with Ron Hamence and Colin McCool, neither of whom played in a Test during the tour, Ring called himself "ground staff" because of the paucity of the trio’s on-field duties in the major matches and they often sang ironic songs about their status." Long sentence, and the last idea doesn't really flow from the previous, does it. Ideal for a dash or semicolon: "matches—often, they would sing ironic ..."?

I thought it does. The songs were about them being ground staff YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests, more frequently than usual, fast bowling dominated over spin, and Ring was used primarily in the non-Test tour matches." Longish again, and it's easier for the readers if you dash out the dependent phrase: "As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests—more frequently than usual—fast bowling dominated over spin, and Ring was used primarily in the non-Test tour matches.

Done. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "top-score" be hyphenated?

I'm not sure but it is consistent YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen top score hyphenated, although top-scored usually is. Daniel (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "The MCC fielded seven players who would represent England in the Tests,[12][13][14][15][16][17]"—is the raft of six refs necessary for this plain statement?

Fixed YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It was easy to trim by a third the rather long caption for batting performance. Tony (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I'm surprised that a Brianboulton copyedit left you not completely satisfied YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments—

• Ring played in only the Fifth Test, taking one wicket for 44 runs (1/44) and scoring nine runs — This sentence scratches the itch of curiosity, as it fails to specify for both batting and bowling whether it is a combined total across two innings or only one. Is there any way to smoothly incorporate these two facts into the sentence?
• Ring called himself "ground staff" — isn't 'ground staff' a collective, and hence it'd need to be 'a member of the' or similar?

I just exactly what was in the quotes and it was used over and over...Weird yes YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the entire tour, Ring took 60 first-class wickets at a bowling average of 21.81, the most expensive among Australia's frontline bowlers — 21.81 is still a pretty good effort, and I think it'd fit nicely to emphasise that this figure is a good number relative to other tours, but simply the worst for the Invincibles.

I think it would make the stats debate part too fat in the lead. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• As England agreed to have a new ball available after every 55 overs after the start of each innings in the Tests — the second 'after' reads awkwardly, although I confess I don't have any immediate ideas for a solution.
• Would it be worth including a one-paragraph introduction about Ring's form immediately prior to the tour, which justified his selection, at the top of 'Early tour'?
• On the first day, Australia set a world record by scoring 721 runs on the first day, the most first-class runs made in a single day’s play,^[10] but Ring was unable to contribute to the surfeit of scoring, making only one. — any suggestions on how to break this five-part sentence up? Its length plus the repetition of "day" makes it read awkwardly.
• He then made an unbeaten nine in Australia's reply of 400. He then shouldered — 'He then'...
• Ring took 3/51 from 21.2 overs in the first innings, leading the way; most of the Test bowlers were given a light workload — is 'leading the way' a generalised and conversationalist way of saying (in this situation) 'bowling the most overs', or 'taking the most wickets', or both? It's probably better to be specific in that part of the sentence in my opinion.
• Can the Derbyshire and Glamorgan paragraphs be merged?
• Watkins swung a delivery from Ring to the leg side straight into the hands of Hassett, who did not need to move from his position on the boundary — as a cricket follower, the use of the word 'swung' to describe a cricket shot caused some confusion upon reading, as its a term nearly exclusively used in relation to bowling rather than batting.
• He removed Reg Simpson to break the opening stand of 60. The Gentlemen progressed to 3/217 before Ring removed Edrich for 128 — second 'removed' to something else, maybe dismissed?
• one specialist spinner in the Tests.^{[18][22][26][28][34]} — worth throwing these five footnotes into that note format you used for the other bulk references?

Five is my upper limit :) YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• in which he sent down 3,088 deliveries. This was second only to Johnston, who bowled 3251 — comma consistency :)

Regardless, an excellent article as always. Support. Daniel (talk) 08:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the rest YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 08:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support—I'll buy this one (Cr. 1a), even though it's double Dutch to me.

• Tour stats in the infobox: microscopic headings? Why not close together the two columns and give us normal font size?

Well that's the project infobox. That's the way it is. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC) [reply]

• "Ring was omitted from this match"—slightly awkward "omitted", unless it's the usual cricket lingo. Was it against his will? If so, I'd use "excluded".

Omitted seems to be a general sports jargon. Excluded is seemingly reserved for people getting disqualified or banned for misconduct YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "the preceding 1947–48 season"—I though we were talking about that very season. I'm confused.

I was referring to the 1947-48 summer in Australia, that preceded teh UK summer of 1948 because his form in the previuos summer determined whether he was picked or not YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WWII—why linked?

Well it is a proper noun...YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "the first time that the tourists had conceded a first innings lead"—"that" could be dropped.

Done YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "He then took three consecutive wickets as Sussex fell from 5/98 to 8/109 before eventually being bowled out for 138."—He was bowled out, or Sussex was? If the former, please insert a comma after 109.

The latter, so nothing is needed I guess YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ring scored 150–runs at 16.66"—why the dash?

Thanks for spotting the blooper YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Statistical notes" display in a very odd way on my OS/browser/platform. 6–69 all on one line? Tony (talk) 12:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed fit on about 60% of one line YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.