Talk:W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The C of E (talk · contribs) 10:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• I will review this. Review coming in a couple of days. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Medium pace bowling should be linked in the lead.
• Can we get an inline citation for the "grossly inflated" expenses?
• Can we get an inline citation for the notion that his confidence was affected by the shooting accident?
• (Might be a bit picky) but Should really clarify it was Dublin, Ireland
• "If the MCC v Australians match at Lord's was the greatest of the season, then the Surrey v Gloucestershire match was the most controversial; and it left a nasty taste for several months afterwards." Bit POV with WP:WEASEL words there. Should really be reworded and cited.
• Why is there a separate section for just the Gentlemen vs Australians in June? I think that leaves a bit of a hole in the article. If it is only one match, Might be best to merge it if it is just one match.
• "Gloucestershire's greatest years in the championship had followed and they were again expected to be in contention as the county fixtures began in 1878." Source? Also I think a bit WEASELy
• "EM", don't you mean E.M.?
• In Canterbury Cricket Week, It talks about a Kent XIII and England XI but we have a "Twelve of Kent" mentioned as well. Where does that come from?
• You linked £ in the expenses section, however it should be linked at first mention not the last
• Source 22, the title of the publisher should be similar to the cricket archive title.
• A lot of the book sources don't have ISBNs. Is there a reason for this?

I reckon it is almost there. Though maybe if you had all the stats in a table, it would be better as a FL. Nevertheless, if you can sort these issues, I'll have another look. At the moment on hold. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been 20 days and nothing has been done so I am presuming this to be abandoned so I'm failing this for the moment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:W. G. Grace in the 1878 English cricket season/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nazcheema (talk · contribs) 21:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Review

By coincidence, I am reading the Simon Rae biography of Grace the last week or so. Obviously, then, I will review this. Please to bear with me as I need to fully understand process and criteria first. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 21:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

I am helped here by an excellent first review done 18 months ago by The C of E. The first review had to close because the editor was unavailable and did not address the reviewer's points in a reasonable time. The reviewer had listed several points to be addressed and evidently they were belatedly addressed earlier this year. It does not seem to me that there has been anything else, other than minor activity, on the article since January 2015 and the article is certainly stable. Next steps for me must be to ensure that The C of E's points were not only addressed but have been resolved or at least satisfactorily answered. I will focus on that for time being. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 08:01, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The C of E's points

These are the points raised in the first review by The C of E.

1. Medium pace bowling should be linked in the lead.
2. Can we get an inline citation for the "grossly inflated" expenses?
3. Can we get an inline citation for the notion that his confidence was affected by the shooting accident?
4. (Might be a bit picky) but Should really clarify it was Dublin, Ireland
5. "If the MCC v Australians match at Lord's was the greatest of the season, then the Surrey v Gloucestershire match was the most controversial; and it left a nasty taste for several months afterwards." Bit POV with WP:WEASEL words there. Should really be reworded and cited.
6. Why is there a separate section for just the Gentlemen vs Australians in June? I think that leaves a bit of a hole in the article. If it is only one match, Might be best to merge it if it is just one match.
7. "Gloucestershire's greatest years in the championship had followed and they were again expected to be in contention as the county fixtures began in 1878." Source? Also I think a bit WEASELy
8. "EM", don't you mean E.M.?
9. In Canterbury Cricket Week, It talks about a Kent XIII and England XI but we have a "Twelve of Kent" mentioned as well. Where does that come from?
10. You linked £ in the expenses section, however it should be linked at first mention not the last
11. Source 22, the title of the publisher should be similar to the cricket archive title.
12. A lot of the book sources don't have ISBNs. Is there a reason for this?

I have checked the editor's responses and can report below point by point.

1. Medium pace bowling has been linked in the lead.
2. Editor has cited Rae, p. 218. I am reading this book and do verify that statement on that page.
3. As above, Rae is again cited and I verify statement of that opinion.
4. Editor addressed this point but I have copyedited his text to read: "his next appearance was in Ireland where he played for the USEE against 15 past and present players of the University of Dublin at its College Park venue". I believe this is better and resolves the point too.
5. Editor has removed entire sentence, wisely I think, first reviewer's criticism entirely justified.
6. Editor has combined two sections to resolve. It is much better now. The "Midwinter incident" was in June too but I think the editor is right to keep that a separate section.
7. Editor revised the sentence and cited Rae who is talking about "Gloucestershire's defence of the title". I do not like the idea of an "unofficial title" but it is sourced.
8. I cannot find an "EM" so it must have been changed as requested. There are five instances of "E. M." (with a space) and five of "E.M." (no space) so consistency lacking. I make same comment about formatting of WG's initials with several instances of inconsistency. Point still to be resolved.
9. Thinking that Canterbury Cricket Week matches only needed clarification and editor has done that. I am satisfied with section as now. One match finished early and another immediately arranged to fill time, I believe, and both were what were called odds with eleven against a greater number. I think this is resolved.
10. A good point well spotted and first instance has been linked by editor to £.
11. I was confused by this point but editor has done it by renaming the citation source work. I have checked the link and it is active. It is a very enjoyable poem.
12. In one edit summary, editor is saying "added one isbn; the rest are old books that never had an isbn". I am advised that this is so. Thinking point is resolved.

Only one of The C of E's points has not been fully resolved. It is a minor one and cosmetic so I will fix it to save time, editor being currently on holiday. After fixing the spacing where initials are used, I will do my own review and see if there are more points. As I said above, first review by The C of E is excellent and agreeing with his summary then that "I reckon it is almost there". Hoping to report again in a couple of days. Thank you, The C of E. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 09:36, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Actions taken

I have resolved the unresolved point raised above. Inserting full stop and space after every initial, it was needed for three people in the article. In a similar way, believing that in citations there should be a space after a full stop so that "p.99" should be "p. 99". Continuing the review. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a concern about the introduction which should be a summary of the whole narrative and it is not. It needs to mention the controversies, the gamesmanship and moneymaking, the "Midwinter incident" and it does not.

I have reviewed the article as far as and including the section called "June: MCC v Derbyshire". It has been necessary to make many changes to links and grammar. Thinking it is better to make these improvements myself instead of listing them, the editor is on holiday. Continuing by this approach later, perhaps tomorrow. When finished, I will consider action to be taken with introduction. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 13:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I have finished the review and needing only a few more minor amendments. Replacing "was" with "were" when the subject is a team (three of four instances of that). That leaves only the introduction which does need more text to properly summarise the article. I will think of this and may decide to update it myself to save time. Let me think what should be added. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 19:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Result of review

Thinking long about introduction, this the one issue that is preventing GA qualification. Dealing with the minor points myself, the bits of grammar, the linkage corrections, the few extra citations, the occasional POV, is all fine and not a problem for me but I am not believing it is right that I should enlarge the introduction and I must place the review on hold to allow the editor completing this. The editor is on holiday and next week I am away from home on a course so maybe we are both "out of office" till July. Needing to be fair and both of us available, I am retaining the "on hold" status until Sunday, 17 July.

To improve introduction, the editor must expand it taking account of these headings and statements I am copying from the narrative to provide guidance. These points should all be summarised within introduction:

• It is believed that Grace contemplated retirement from cricket in the winter of 1877–78 - this is very important.

• He had been seriously injured in a shooting accident in September 1877, which nearly cost him the sight of one eye, and this may have caused him to review his life.

• Still unqualified as a doctor and with a growing family to support, Grace had doubts about his long-term security even though he was making considerable profit from cricket by way of "grossly inflated" expense claims and appearance fees.

• Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC) solved his financial problems by voting him a National Testimonial with a view to purchasing a medical practice out of the proceeds.

• It was hoped that a regular income would "end the embarrassment of his blatant shamateurism".

• One of Grace's biographers, Bernard Darwin, who knew him personally, wrote that the arrival of the first Australian touring team "tipped the beam in favour of cricket" but it was also the case that no one, especially Grace, took the Australian players too seriously.

• It is more likely that A. J. Webbe was right when he said: "W. G. never could have given up cricket".

• Grace and his wife Agnes had returned to Gloucestershire and lived with Grace's elder brother Henry at Kingswood, near Bristol. The Graces already had two sons and their third child Bessie was born in May 1878.

• When not playing cricket, Grace had to study a backlog of medical theory.

• By the time Grace celebrated his 30th birthday in July 1878, he was arguably the most famous man in England; but he was also one of the most controversial on account of his gamesmanship and moneymaking. Both of these aspects were subject to serious challenge in the light of events in 1878.

• Monday, 27 May 1878 – MCC v Australians at Lord's - "arguably the most momentous six hours in cricket history" - this is very important

• June: the Midwinter incident - this is very important

• Grace may have felt pleased that he had got his man but he did not get his expenses, for Surrey refused to pay them.

• There was a subscript the following winter when Grace and his brother E. M. were called to account by the Gloucestershire membership and a special enquiry was ordered.

• Gloucestershire made their first visit to Old Trafford Cricket Ground on Thursday, 25 July, to play Lancashire and this was the match immortalised by Francis Thompson in his idyllic poem "At Lord's".

• Gloucestershire did not retain the title they had claimed in 1877, when they had won 7 and drew 1 of 8 matches played.

• The expenses inquiry - this is very important.

The six good article criteria are below and I am commenting against each criterion how I see this article.

• Well written:

the prose is clear and concise – standard of prose is exceedingly high

the spelling and grammar are correct – some minor improvements to grammar were needed and are done, spelling is excellent

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections – review is ON HOLD to allow completion of introduction (see above)

it complies with the manual of style guidelines for layout, fiction, etc. – compliance has been fully achieved

• Verifiable with no original research:

it contains a list of all references (sources), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline – referencing is excellent

all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, etc. – all sources are reliable

it contains no original research – there is none

it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism – there is none

• Broad in its coverage:

it addresses the main aspects of the topic – coverage is comprehensive and most informative

it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (summary style) – entirely within scope and detailed, but with no unnecessary detail

• Neutral:

it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each – there is no evidence of bias, remembering that Grace was a very controversial man

• Stable:

it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute – it is completely stable

• Illustrated, if possible, by images:

images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content – there is no problem with any image

images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions – all are relevant and useful with suitable captions

I have enjoyed performing this GA review and hoping the editor will return from his holiday and, him revisiting the introduction, the article will be promoted to GA-class soon afterwards. Thank you. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 15:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Editor's response

@Nazcheema: Thanks for doing this review which is fair and thorough. I appreciate you attending to the minor points yourself as I do likewise when reviewing. I agree that the lead needed more input but I wonder if you were asking for more than necessary as your list was a touch overlong, methinks? Personally, I don't think any lead should run to more than three or four paragraphs, all of them written in summary style. My revision has resulted this time in a five-paragraph lead which I think covers everything high-level without going into detail.

Could you please take a look and let me know as soon as possible if you need anything else? I'm afraid the asap is because I've decided to suspend my account and leave WP for the next twelve months at least. This is to give priority to other commitments, especially a twelve-month study project I really want to do which will be very time-consuming, and secondly to escape from all the bullshit I encounter on this site. That is no reflection on you and I'm glad you are focused on improving the Bangladesh coverage which, like much else, has been neglected by CRIC. Good luck with that. I'll watch out for anything on this GAN for another week but after that I won't be using the site any more. Thanks again and all the best. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack. I am apologising that I have not replied to you sooner except that I have been away from home on a residential course. I will certainly review the introduction again and hoping that this will lead me to pass the article as a GA. Thank you, Jack. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 17:50, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I am pleased to write that the new introduction is complying with my request placed above and I am seeing nothing else to be done with the article. It is passing the Good Article criteria now and I am closing this review. Thank you, Jack, and I am wishing you success in your study project next year. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 18:15, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

A five-paragraph introduction is a violation of one of the GA criteria, on lead sections (WP:WIAGA states: it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections), which gives as a maximum size for an intro as four paragraphs. BlackJack, Nazcheema, this really ought to be fixed right away, or the GA listing rolled back until it does. Thanks. I'm sorry you had to deal with the erroneous message from the bot about the article having failed rather than having been passed; it's a known bug, and we haven't been able to get the bot owner to correct it. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, BlueMoonset. I am fearing that this was my fault, Jack did say above that the introduction should be three to four paragraphs. I was presenting him with a rather long list of points, I am afraid to be saying. I have taken action and, Jack, I am not thinking you need to do anything. The fifth paragraph is easily terminating the first, both about Grace on the field in the 1878 season. I have merged these two and now there are the maximum four paragraphs. I am finding this a useful learning point, BlueMoonset, and I am learning more about the site every time I use it. I am hoping the article is now complying with site standards. Thank you, BlueMoonset. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 04:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Nazcheema, thanks for the quick fix. I haven't looked at the article further, and don't really have time; given its length, a four-paragraph lead is an ideal size, so that's all set. BlackJack, since the article has just been listed as a GA, it has seven days from its listing to be submitted to Did You Know, the section on the Wikipedia main page just below the day's featured article. This means you have until July 2 to make a submission if you're interested. Let me know if you have any questions. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, I am seeing that BlackJack is intending to suspend his account and I am doubting that he will reply. I am not familiar with Did You Know. Might I be suggesting, though, that an interesting fact about W. G. Grace in 1878 was that he was seriously considering retirement after the shooting accident? Had he been retiring then, the history of cricket and of sport would have been completely different because he went on playing as the world's leading player until the 1900s. Thank you, BlueMoonset. Regards, Naz | talk | contribs 06:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)