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 SandyGeorgia 22:53, 30 January 2010 [1].

---

Second Test, 1948 Ashes series[edit]

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Featured article candidates/Second Test, 1948 Ashes series/archive1

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Another of the 1948 Ashes Tests, this one was held at Lord's and set a new record for a Test match attendance in England. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments Support- Generally excellent and certainly comprehensive. Very readable and engaging. One or two points which could be clarified.
  • Is there any mileage in the background in commenting on England's change of strategy for this Test? They adopted a very negative defensive strategy for the first Test but went more for attack in this Test. Bill Bowes, a journalist by then, wrote about this at length in his autobiography and blamed (for he opposed it) the strategy on Walter Robins, the chairman of selectors. E.g. selection of Coxon and Wright, dropping of Young, more attacking play. However, not sure if anyone but Bowes says this.

Added this myself and a few more bits from Bowes.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Bradman received a loud reception from the crowd" Presumably a positive reception?

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • The century "erased a poor run of form". Not too sure about the word "erased" rather than "ended".

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Miller did offering a shot" Should this say "did not offer a shot"?

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Edrich "playing across the line": does this need explaining for the non-cricketer?

Done and added dicdef in List of cricket terms YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Although Yardley was very much a part time bowler, he had a faintly unbelievable run of success in this series and the last one. Is this worth a mention?

I did find it unusual because when I saw that he was England's second leading wicket-taker for the series and had the second lowest average of all players, I checked his profile and saw that he averaged about 0.6 of a wicket per game. I can add the raw data, and you have the pundit's comment, I hope, as the Australian's didn't bother to note it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only comment I could find related to the 46-47 series. I think the stats cover it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 11:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • In this Test, Coxon and Compton came to blows in the dressing room, although details are scarce. I know of at least one book which mentions some details. Could this be added?

Added this myself.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Any reaction to the match from the press, e.g. critical of England?--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Put in Wisden's comment on result and Bowes verdict. Added it at the end, not sure if it works there.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Are attendance figures available for each day? Any explanation for the record attendance?

I couldn't find any daily figures, but nothing specific for the reason, except the general popularitry. added YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:54, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • I would say that the article is well written and comprehensive. It is well researched; would it benefit from at least mentioning Wisden's viewpoint? I notice Wisden is not referenced and would be one of the major sources. Sorry, my mistake! Lots of Wisden there.--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Another great article in this series; I've pretty much come to expect high quality in these articles by now. Prose and sourcing both seem up to scratch. (Note that I made a few cleanup edits recently) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Excellent account of the Test. Aaroncrick (talk) 11:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Should average be linked for the non cricket followers? - as many may not know that if you get a not out it doesn't get counted as an out in your average - or is that overkill?
• What's the point of leaving images in the article if they aren't to be displayed because of copyright reasons? Seems silly to me - no big deal though.
• Overlinking: On a quick glance I see that bouncer is linked twice and is also linked for short ball. There may be others, if so swipe 'em.

Removed double link. I used rpt links for synonyms, as the outsider wouldn't know this, and could get confused, and using the same word over and over wouldnt be good prose. Average linked, an oversight YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Images only one, and it is also in Third Test, 1948 Ashes series, which passed FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Test, 1948 Ashes series/archive1 with an image review a few weeks ago YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Shouldn't "all rounder" be hyphenated? You've done so in other articles. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YM, the numbers running together here look very messy in the TOC-- it took me a while to realize there were day/dates there, not part of the TOC:

• 3 24 June: Day One
• 4 25 June: Day Two
• 5 26 June: Day Three
• 6 28 June: Day Four
• 7 29 June: Day Five

What if you switched them to this?

• 3 Day one: 24 June
• 4 Day two: 25 June:
• 5 Day three: 26 June
• 6 Day four: 28 June
• 7 Day five: 29 June

Also, I think there's too much uppercase on the Days, per WP:MSH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can change this on the whole series YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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