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 23:16, 10 October 2010 [1].

Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sid Barnes was one of the two opening batsmen of the team. He was also known for his habit of fielding at point blank range in order to intimidate opposition batsmen and he spent three weeks in hospital after being hit in the chest by a bowler. More generally he was rather individualistic and caused a few colourful incidents YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

Otherwise sources and citations look Ok. Brianboulton (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with a free young Barnes YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed this due to the loophole of one playing out of position YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all, seems pretty good - perhaps a little stat heavy at times but that's hard to avoid. A tidy-up of the lead and a careful proof-read, and I think this should be fine. Trebor (talk) 04:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another round of copyedit I think YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Filed in the authors; the front of the magazine explains the shorthand. The later two things, they are conventions like in FLs and tables linking the same country over and over YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought in tables overlinking is accepted because of sorting (the first instance of a term/name has to be linked regardless of the sorting chosen by the viewer); for refs, they are always in the same order so I don't really know if it similar. Nergaal (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Total linking seems to be de facto acceptable for all articles; I see it everywhere on FACs/FARs including those reviewed by die-hard unlinking campaigners YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to be convention to list the accessdate in the infobox even for inactive players. Maybe this is just to keep things consistent. Have asked the project but don't see it's existence as being a problem or detraction YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WT:CRIC says to keep it, due to possibilities that errors are found in the databases and the records tweaked, and so forth, for webpages YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A quick readthrough has brought up the following prose points:-

Lead
Background

This sentence has been commented on: "As only two players bat at any one time, only two can act as openers, so the trio were competing for two opening positions in Bradman's first-choice team." I think it is still clunky. I would slim it down to: "As specialist opening batsmen, the trio were competing for the two opening positions in Bradman's first-choice team."

Late tour matches

"He then bowled nine overs and conceded nine runs with nine maidens..." Please tell me how that is possible.

Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I hope YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Changed to "oft-recalled" as it was in his obit, and in Fingo, and there is a picture of it, although it had no sporting importance whatsoever. It's in a few other books if I dig them all YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, unless you mean Fingo who is already in there, the old newspapers are rather sparse unlike the modern age with Cricinfo and previews and plays of the day of everything YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first occurrence of duck is in the hampshire part, which is linked. Did you mean something else? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Just losing the plot slightly. Ignore that one! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Things like "holed out on the hook" is common but could be slangy, so changed it YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, tiger wasn't very specific but sounds like he tried to jab a belly-high ball
If you can yes. Although both Fingo and Tiger were scathing of the bowling in the Fourth Test for the high England scores. Worst bowling sine the war, so they said YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine these things are relative with that attack! Added comment about it: from Wisden and not earth-shattering but shows Barnes' impact I think. Take it out if it doesn't fit! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No per, the lack of detail in teh tour matches, expecially as both Tiger and Fingo said that tour matches after the start of the Tests didn't change much and couldn't be bothered writing mcuh YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked teh rest YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with the above qualification about jargon - I might have missed some and it needs a non-cricketer to check): It has now been checked for jargon by a non-cricketer. Another solid one on 1948. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Done as of 7 October YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Regarding criteria 1, 2, and 4. I comment as a non-expert, noting that the article is very technical in nature, and was difficult to understand (for a layman, to the topic, such as myself). JonCatalán(Talk) 06:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sad oppose. I would very much like to support this article but I found a few problems with it:

Done more, and other turn of phrase that may raise curiousity
Sobriquet standard when people are "dubbed" a certain way because of a trait or achievement or reputation, rather than more playful nicknames, so to speak
Yes, like a Mike Tyson uppercut. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it is indeed the latter, could you rephrase it? right now it may be read as "Pollard-pull shot" and is confusing. Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it wasn't his main name YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oft, adjournment and let-off are non-cricketing general English terms: oft= regular, adjournment= break, let-off=reprieve. The rest, done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pavilion is also a general term for a grandstand but I linked to the cricket dictionary as well. Home nation is the host nation, no need for anything YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. I read it as home nations. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Oft": is this the same thing as often? Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
linked turn of phrase YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No this is cricket. The singular is also innings. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
more dicdefs YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would be like creating a record for fastest 100m segment in a 400m race and would get AFDed if it was created. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised there is no entry at List of Test cricket records or in a similar list of records. Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
chose YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not technical, but done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean that it was technical. I meant that is sounded as if somebody used google translate to write it. Nergaal (talk) 10:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two lbws, teh first is longhand with abbrev, the second abbrev
Yes, I realized that. I was saying though that since there is only a single use besides the original, I don't see the need to use the abbreviation at all. Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General conclusion up until the first tour: this article is way too technical. Yes, I don't understand cricket, but a FA should not rely on the reader being aware of each of the terms to understand the article. There are plenty of things that would be easily fixed, but I feel it needs a good amount of work to bring it down to the level of casual readers of wikipedia. Presumably this could be featured on the mainpage at some point in the future, which means a lot of people would want to go through it. But in many parts, I (like the other 95% of wikipedia readers that do not know cricket) have no idea what is the article is trying to say. After reading the first part of the article, I feel like I would need to read a book on introductory cricket to understand more than a third of the article. I would be quite worried to have a featured article on wikipedia which would have a banner at the top of the page saying something like "before reading this article you should try reading Introduction to cricket first". I think the least this article should do is add notes to each of the technical expressions to translate the meaning of the terms. There should also be a note on how is the score in cricket computed, and who is the winner (there are some places where the article gives the impression that a x-y score gives the former team the win even if x<y). Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done it some more with phrases etc, and the notation is linked to a footnote, but even if notes explaining what a wide in cricket is or what leg theory and various other tactics are, it would take about 3-6 sentences at least to explain the technical basis for each thing, similar to why one should not have doubled pawns in chess, or whether one should not attack straight away with teh queen, then we end up with 30 paragraph-long notes and it would not be feasible. If this means that cricket match-type articles can't pass, well they can't pass, but I believe your philosophical position is far from mainstream YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it can't pass. But in imho I do think that a true featured article should be accessible to people that are not necessarily very familiar with the topic. And by this I mean that although it might not always be possible to get rid of technical terms, it is desirable to limit their use as much as possible; if there are fewer uses of them, the more clear the text is to a casual reader. Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since most of my comments were fixed, I have no reason to oppose anymore. I am neutral since although the article seems to pass the criteria, I am not sufficiently aware of the terms to objectively rate it. Nergaal (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I gave the article another reading, due to YM's edits during the past few days (and probably also partially due to reading a few about cricket) I think that the article is is a good shape for a FA. The technical terms are appropriate, and when necessary well linked. Therefore, the information is a lot more clear than before, and I believe it is worth featuring the article in the current state. Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it was useful adding more turns of phrase to the glossary page YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:12, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I believe this article definitely meets the FA criteria, and I think that reasonable steps have been taken to make it comprehensible to a readership beyond that of cricket enthusiasts. I have to say I don't believe a word of the Skelding dog story. I think someone, probably Fingleton, made it up out of a trivial dog-on-the-pitch incident, and others have quoted it as fact. But why spoil a good story? Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is a pitch of Barnes with the dog in the book and also video footage of Loxton falling over trying to catch it on the Invincibles doco on the ABC. Thanks for patching up the canine `YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:12, 10 October 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.
More