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 21:07, 27 September 2009 [1].

---

Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

((Invincibles Advert)) An Allrounder who played in the last three Tests of the Invincibles tour. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have two or more supports in your two other FACs, but isn't three running nominations a bit much? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of them's winding down and should be closed in the next two days. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved now, the other two were promoted. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whether you think the others are winding down or not, three on the go is unreasonable. It is also presumptuous. Why couldn't you just wait a few days? Brianboulton (talk) 08:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose right off, this article seems to be confused as to whether it's a biography of Sam Loxton or an article about his presence on that team. Compare infoboxes between the two articles for example. I haven't read the entire article, in part because I know nothing of cricket and get lost in the terms. However, I'm very concerned that an article such as this counts as original research, and will lead to articles such as Andy Pettitte with the New York Yankees in 2007. Ick. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The infoboxes aren't identical, check the numbers YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OR, everything is cited YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – The article, along with the rest in the series, has been nominated for deletion. Anyone have any thoughts on whether that causes a 1e (stability) violation? I've never seen anything like this in any article I've wanted to review for FAC. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean to cause a temporal paradox :) I'm aware of at least on featured article that later was deleted via AfD. It's not unprecedented. Having that knowledge, I thought about whether these articles should exist in the first place. It seems patently absurd to me that we need to have an article about every player on the tour. There's no place to draw the line other than at all players at X sporting event/tour/series. We're going to end up with Vaughn Taylor at the 2007 Masters Tournament, in addition to Vaughn Taylor, and in addition to 2007 Masters Tournament. I fail to see the point. That's what caused me to go the route of AfD. A grant this particular article is at least good. That an article is good and well referenced does not automatically mean it is notable and worthy of inclusion. That's a point being lost on a great many people in the AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the content hasn't changed so it isn't unstable YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a well written article Gnangarra 02:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Another well written addition. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – Most interesting start to an FAC I've seen in my time here. With the AfD closed, I'm ready to fully review the article. Quite a few little issues, but nothing that should be too much to handle.
• Background and early matches: There's a red link caused by a typo.
• Don't need two all rounder links in a paragraph.
• he managed only four before being trapped leg before wicket by Australian expatriate left arm orthodox spiner...". Is spelling of last word okay?
• "It was a chance for al players...". Another little typo.
• Second Test: "and Loxton and Harvey were promoted to open after the latter offered to open." The "to open" bit is a redundancy.
  • "to" was removed from here, when I would have rather seen one of the "open"s changed. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a few World War II links scattered throughout. That seems like a link that wouldn't be of much value, seeing as virtually everyone knows about WWII.
• Fourth Test: Not sure about the quotation marks around Wisden. I'm thinking this was meant to be in italics but the shift button was held by accident. Happens to me more often than I care to think about.
• "Loxton began to settle inas the ball came...". Spacing.
• Sentence fragment: "Loxton not required to bat." Check to see if the punctuation at the end of the previous sentence is what was intended.
• Several of those noun and -ing sentences that I keep annoying everybody about. The two in the lead should be dealt with in particular.
• Role: However, Loxton was productive when given an chance". "an" → "a". Giants2008 (17–14) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done I htink YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets FA standard, even if the subject isn't the most popular FAC has ever seen. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Image review - The only image is File:Sam Loxton graph 1948.png, which looks good. It would be good if an image of Sam Loxton from the time period could be added to the article. Regards, NW (Talk) 17:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jappalang says only pre-1946 images are allowed, and he started in late 1946, so no. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a notable subject? In other words, are there reliable sources which talk about "Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948"? If not, this article is original research. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• At the risk of appearing argumentative, there was a wide ranging discussion (that you participated in) where among other things, the notability of the subject and the claim that the articles were original research were considered by the community. As it turned out, the consensus was that the articles should be kept. Your comments here substantially mirror your comments there. It is hardly fair to rerun the AfD discussion here at FAC. If you are unhappy with the result of the AfD, other avenues such as DRV would be more appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes there are sources YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

I'm afraid it is time to pull the plug on this repetitive series. I, for one, am tired of the repetition. The same set of sentences, "X was a member of Donald Bradman's famous Australian cricket team, which toured England in 1948. Bradman’s men went undefeated in their 34 matches; this unprecedented feat by a visiting side earned them the sobriquet The Invincibles." seem to have become like a ritual incantation to enter the sacred realm. Not only do you have articles on each of the tests played during the 48 tour, you also have an article for each X that played in it, and in addition, articles "X and the Australian cricket team in England in 1948." All the articles have sections with the same parent pages. I'm afraid I'm not convinced that content forks are not being created and content not being duplicated. Even if this is not the case, I'm not convinced that this level of specialization is encyclopedic. I feel it is time for someone with your exceptional abilities to concentrate on other pages, for example, W.G. Grace , Victor Trumper, Ranjitsinhji, Jack Hobbs, and a host of early cricketers whose Wikipedia pages are little more than stubs. You could, of course, take the standard tack and say all this is not actionable, but in my opinion the articles have gone long beyond the point of diminishing returns, both for you and for us. All the best. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler, this oppose is not actionable. These articles were debated at AfD and were kept. Karanacs (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to Karanacs: Yes, I do understand that, as I say myself at the end. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To YellowMonkey: please feel free to ignore my oppose. It is really meant to encourage you at a higher level. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:54, 22 September 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.