Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leg before wicket/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Leg before wicket edit

Leg before wicket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LBW is one of those horrible cricket rules many people have heard of but can be heavy going for the non-cricketer. Part of the reason for its complexity is its rather unusual history, and hopefully this article explains both the rule and why it came about. It has had the once-over from some cricketers, it is currently a GA and it had a very useful PR, which included the views of two non-cricketers to check its comprehensibility to outsiders. Any further comments gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • for someone who's grown up watching and playing cricket its still a little heavy to read, but I dont have any suggestions on that will read again. The first thing that really stands out are notes 3 & 4 which describe the on/off side for right and left handed batsmen, both use the phrase "from behind the wicket" suggest that maybe it needs to also explain what is "from behind the wicket" or chose a more clearer description of something like "from the batsman' perspective looking towards the bowler".
  • Clarified the "from behind the wicket". Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On "a little heavy to read", any suggestions would be appreciated. There is a certain degree of technical exposition and explanation which is unavoidable, but I've been trying to minimise this. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the choice of photos in particular of Bob Wyatt doesnt fit most of the material around that area leaves me asking why Wyatt, what so important about him in particular in relation to the LBW laws. By comparison there's a lot more(more then twice per words used) in that section attributed directly to Bradman, or associated with Bradman(bodyline). Bradman's specific proposal is mention where as Wyatt was identified a just one several critics who wanted the rules to return to the pre-1937 version. Gnangarra 10:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to disagree on this one. Bradman is only specifically mentioned once in the section, and he was not really too vocal about lbw (as opposed to, for example, the front foot no-ball rule). Bodyline is also only a passing mention, albeit important, and I'd really hate to use yet another Bradman image. It seems almost every cricket article (including many of which I am guilty) includes a photograph of him. Wyatt is actually mentioned twice as an opponent, and was a leading critic of the "new" rule. Perhaps that does not quite come across enough, but I think he is as useful an image as any. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • oh and its screaming out for a diagram or two Gnangarra 10:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing what I can do about this, but it is slow going. My other fear is that a diagram may be even more complicated than the text, unless multiple ones are used. And I have reservations about multiple diagrams. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice idea. Tried it now, hopefully correctly. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • just a query, on note 6"... from 2002 both umpires had to be from a neutral nation", what about the third umpire especially given that this article refers to use of technology, should it not also be included in the note. I've had another read since the othwer adjustments have been made, it still a little heavy to read but I thinks that more a factor of the rules complexity than any specific prose issues so I'm happy to Support this one Gnangarra 06:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support and comments. The only reason the neutral umpires are mentioned here is because the study looked to see if their use had impacted on lbws. It did not mention 3rd umpires, so I don't think there is any need. Also, technology is referred to later on in some depth. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I was one of the non-cricket reviewers at the PR, and I'm satisfied that the writing is clear enough to be understandable for people like myself who don't have great knowledge of the sport. The prose, sourcing, and other elements all meet the FA standards as I see them. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your earlier suggestions and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after my comments at the PR. The BBC slideshow just makes it even clearer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your help has been much appreciated. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug edit

Comments

Reading from below:

  • The "technology" and "trends" sections begin identically.
  • Isn't % discouraged in favour of percent?
  • According to MOSNUM: "Percentages are usually written with figures, e.g. 10 percent or 10%": Either is fine as long as there is no space between the number and the symbol. For the purposes of this article, I think it is sufficiently technical to warrant %. ("The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings.") Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "captains of county teams were statistically more likely" - why?!
  • Basically because captains wrote up reports on the umpires after each match or at the end of the season, depending on when we are talking about. An influential captain could instantly end an umpire's career if he disagreed with him. Unfortunately, I cannot find a source which says this apart from one or two specific examples from before WW2, and nothing about more recent times when this rule continued. To me, this makes perfect sense that a captain could have such influence, but it may not to anyone else. Does this work, or would it be better to remove it? I'd like it in, but not if it is just dangling. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it in, and add the WW2 examples as a note. IMO you can be a little more casual in the notes, so you can say that you haven't found anything about today. By the way, does Miller's captains study apply to the present-day as well?—indopug (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the pre-ww2 stuff, which also extends a bit beyond. All Miller's statistics go to 2010 as stated in the article. There is some minor variation in the captaincy figures, but as with the other stuff, nothing especially worthwhile if we are keeping it tight. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A majority of the studies in the last section are about an umpire's biases. For this you need to know what wrong decisions were made in favour of the home team, rather than simply compare the total no of lbws of both teams. Yet, "it is impossible to determine from these studies if any of the decisions were wrong, particularly as the lbw law can have different interpretations". So I'm not sure about how sensible these studies are in showing a correlation. I think you should thus scale down this section, whose claims are trivial at best (all the increases seem to be slight) and illogical at worst.—indopug (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've cut this right back. I think it needs to be there for reasons of comprehensiveness (since people are, however oddly, studying this) but hopefully this is a bit more coherent. Even if it says that the studies don't really say much. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments and copy-edits so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, it's fine now. Continuing my comments...—indopug (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • amateur is used thrice in one sentence.—indopug (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment about comprehensiveness: isn't this article too anglocentric? What of other cricket-playing nations, including the biggest current market of them all? While I agree that the likes of Asia had little influence on the laws game historically, surely there must be some local variations of lbw there? For eg: how do Indian umpires approach lbw in highly turning wickets of the Ranji Trophy? What about bouncy South Africa and West Indies (of yore)? Maybe a general pitch-based study of lbw decisions would be useful. Of course, all this moot if you've exhausted the sources and there's nothing about any of this.
  • The only thing I've got is a sentence on lbws being less likely on the subcontinent. I've added this, but everything else is very anglo-centric. From a historical point of view, it was all England. Unfortunately, there were no local variations that have been reported on and I have rather exhausted the sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean more likely in the subcontinent? ("more statistically likely in matches taking place on the Indian subcontinent")—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yes. The article is correct: more likely. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Development of the law
  • The Wisden Almanack refs should have a "reproduced at Cricinfo", because you aren't really citing directly from the 1936 book.
  • Hmm, I've been hauled over the coals in the past for doing just this. No other source check at FAC has raised this issue. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Since you haven't seen the Almanack yourself, you need to say that you saw it reprinted on Cricinfo.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely convinced, but I've added "reproduced by ESPNCricinfo" to the publisher. Would that cover it? Sarastro1 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraphs toward the middle of the section are too large and imposing, especially when the text is so technical. I also have a personal preference against single-para subsections, but it's just a preference.
  • I've had a go at splitting. Not sure I've chosen the best places. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout the section there's an (IMO) unreasonable expectation on the reader to understand the laws and proposals based solely on quoted technical text that uses 18th and 19th-century language.
  • Hopefully this is improved now. Please let me know of any other archaic parts. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the sub-section titles of this section have years?—indopug (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

  • As stated above, could use a detailed explanation of the 1839 law, an understanding of which is necessary for the next two paras.
  • OK, paraphrased this a little more. Any better? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, I understand it now. Another thing to consider: you can have the full quoted law as a note to keep a record of a bit of history (I think you do this later on). You can then choose to remove the quoted bits from the main prose for further readability.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and attempted reform

  • To be honest, I can't really see what the big difference between these reform proposals and the 1839 law is. I think you need to explicitly explain what these differences are. Again, interpreting just the quoted text is difficult.
  • Paraphrased. Does this work? Advice gratefully received! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "citing as one strand of evidence the growing proportion of wickets which were falling lbw" - I'm not sure I get the logic here, if increasing no of batsmen are getting out lbw, why would you want to make the law even more anti-batsmen?
  • Clarified: it was about the increasing use of pad-play, hence a stricter law needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration to the law

  • The four people in the first para need to be described, esp their nationality, since you're talking of a contest between two countries. Probably add a note explaining Bodyline.
  • Described the four people. I'm reluctant to get into Bodyline here. It's a complicated explanation, even as a note, and is not crucial to the thrust of the argument. I think it is better explained by the link. Again, I'd rather remove it than get bogged down. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "experiment/al" is overused.
  • "Then, in 1935..." this sentence does a good job of explaining how the new law is different. Consider adding "but the ball still needed to hit the batsman in front of the wickets" but I'm not sure it's necessary.
  • I think it might be. I went for slightly different wording. Any good? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Noticed a couple more things:
  • "and that there were fewer drawn matches" reads oddly (make into new sentence?).
  • The Times quote is a little long; its first sentence can be expunged as we know that already.
  • Just realised how curious the Bob Wyatt case is; so upto 1995 he preferred the 1839 law?! (btw maybe clearer to call it that than "pre-1935 wording")—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Interesting chap. I'd prefer not to use "1839" as the laws changed several times in between those dates, so it would not be quite accurate (even in the law was the same). The sources usually go for "pre-1935". Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playing no stroke

  • Those italics aren't part of the original quote. Is that so
  • Correct. It was to emphasise it, but I don't know what the wikipedia equivalent of "emphasis mine" is! So I took these out and added a phrase to draw attention to the difference. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to go back to the previous way: [emphasis here]? Although WP:MOS doesn't seem to address it, it uses this wording throughout the text. I'm sure the MoS is written in compliance of itself. :)—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too bothered about italics, and I think the current version may be marginally better. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This wording was adopted from 1972 ... When the MCC revised the Laws of Cricket in 1980" - confused here. How can you play with rules that aren't in the MCC's Laws? Doesn't this contradict note 1?
  • It was really another experimental rule. There was scope for different parts of the world to have different rules at this time, and this new wording was simply adopted worldwide without being officially added for another 8 years. I've tweaked the wording a little, but such practices (using laws that weren't part of the Laws) was quite common. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The quoted laws are understandable here because the language is contemporary; this isn't so earlier)
  • Try to avoid repetition of "Laws" in the last sentence.
  • BTW add a "this the version that stands to this day" at the end.—indopug (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of technology

  • I think the absence of talk of Hawkeye not accounting for different pitch and environmental conditions sufficiently enough is a big miss. I wonder if we should also explicitly mention the BCCI's reluctance to use UDRS.
  • Re India: This came up at PR, and I think I'm sufficiently persuaded that India need a mention. I've added quite a bit (further eyes on it would be appreciated!) on this. I also added something on criticism of the technology (mainly India's arguments) but I'm a little wary here. You mention "different pitch and environmental conditions" but I've never read of this as a criticism aside from in the earliest days, and even then not in reliable sources, or when Ian Botham is opining on Sky Sports. And I tend to take him with a large pinch of salt. I've never seen it convincingly argued by a credible authority that a computer cannot take into account pitch and environmental factors. If the ball has bounced, the technology can show where it would have carried on. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I thought env variations was the reason. To be honest, the newly added stuff is weighted towards DRS rather than lbw. Esp the last two sentences have nothing to do with lbw.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "open to manipulation" part is about lbw. I've cut the last sentence. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo: if you don't mind fair-use, you should add one of these. For eg: I see a Sachin image that illustrates both Hawk-eye and the UDRS.
  • I would be reluctant to add these. I have no opposition to fair use images, but would have some trouble justifying the use of these, to be honest. And I imagine several people may have a problem with using their images like this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I actually feel strongly about this one. Here's the image I'm talking about; as you can see the tabs on the left--wickets, pitching, impact--and the trajectory of the ball illustrate very clearly what the text is trying to say about what Hawkeye can do. Also this (Ind v Pak, 2011 WC) seems to have become a notable incident so you can maybe even use it to talk of a controversy (not insisting though).
  • As for having "a problem with using their images", it's clearly just a screengrab of a live broadcast at least watched by one billion people (and this point mostly holds true even if we choose another such image). Of course, we may have to find a better-sourced image than one from a blog to meet standards, but my point is it definitely meets WP:NFCC.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still prefer not to. As you say, that image comes from a blog; the incident itself could be added to the article to justify fair use, but I think it would be undue. Other images of hawkeye are from some media sites, but I really don't think they would add that much (although on the hawkeye article, it may be another matter) and is not actually necessary. What does it tell us about lbw? If we were to include one, I would prefer it to be a screen-grab which someone took and uploaded directly, but that is beyond my technology! I would have no objection to anyone else adding one. But I think I might be stubborn on this one! :) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo alt: if you do, you should add this ("Since the 1990s, with the introduction of Hawkeye and UDRS, umpires have been more willing to give batsmen out lbw.") because, uh, this article desperately needs a colour photograph. :)
  • Oh my. It looks like a part of a comedy sketch. I'd prefer to leave this one out! And I don't think lack of colour photographs is too much of a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "inconsistency of approach to lbw decisions among umpires and match officials" I don't really understand this; how are match officials relevant in giving lbw decisions? And how can there be inconsistency when all umpires are to be backed up by the same technology?
  • This one is more about DRS than lbw, so I'd prefer to be brief. Match officials meant the 3rd umpire (avoiding repetition) but took this phrase out and tweaked it for clarity. The inconsistency comes from when decisions are referred. And sometimes the officials just get it wrong by applying the DRS rules wrongly. I could source and add this, but to me it is more about DRS and I'd prefer to remove this entirely than get bogged down. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definition
  • "even if it would have bounced before hitting the stumps" - why is this necessary to mention?
  • It is quite contentious. For example, a ball spinning sharply would often spin past the stumps; but if the ball, for example, hit the batsman on the full and would have bounced afterwards, it may have missed the stumps. But umpires are explicitly told to imagine that even the sharpest spun delivery would carry on straight. There was a little bit of fan/TV grumbling about this one when it was altered. And as it is explicitly stated that all balls carry on straight. This is kind of implied in the laws, and there are no reliable sources which really make this explicit. So, in short, it's necessary. Sorry, long rambling answer! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is well-written, but does the last para belong here? It is the most enjoyable bit of the article, and I wonder if it can expanded to a two/three-paragraph "Impact and perception" section (at the end, because even the current text seems like a good concluding para)? I know that in India there have been minor crowd riots due to wrong lbw decisions (Azharuddin in the 1996 Titan Cup in Bangalore against Australia comes to mind).—indopug (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Azharuddin riot from 1996, thanks for that one! I'm not sure about moving this. I would struggle to expand it beyond a list of riots (!) and, for me, it makes sense here rather than tacking it on the end. But I'm not completely set on this, and could be persuaded if you consider it an improvement. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember that well because my brother got a call that night from a friend who claimed "the nick onto pad was audible from the crowd"! ::*While adding more riots is unnecessary, I proposed moving it to the end because 1) it has nothing to do with the defn of lbw, 2) usually on Wikipedia we have receptions to things towards the end, and 3) it has the most flavourful writing (like that completely apt comparison to offside). I'm sure you could find all sorts of experts passing their (witty) judgements on the law. Also, if you can't find stuff to expand this, even sticking it in the last section (renamed "Trends and perceptions"?) is ok. On the other hand, in its current location this stuff gets in the way of a logical progression from understanding the law to reading about how it came to be.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm convinced! I moved it to the last section and worked some of it in with the statistical studies. How is it now? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's everything now. Again, thanks for the comments so far. I'm not sure there are many FAs about similar topics (i.e. sports rules), so my main worry all along has been to include everything that is needed and to make it comprehensible. Whatever happens at this FAC, your help has been invaluable. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, I'm just on a cricket high because of a certain recent whitewash.
  • I was rather pleased about that one myself... Sarastro1 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More seriously, your work ethic is astonishing; I'd have taken a week to get to these so well!—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

Finally, we come to the beginning. I think the lead generalises too much, to the point that it reads vaguely. For eg: "Suggestions for improvements have included extending or reducing the criteria under which a batsman can be lbw."

  • to mirror the current article, I think everything from misunderstood to the quote should be moved to the end. Add the offside-rule comparison too so other-sport fans can appreciate the complexity.
  • if you agree to that, the now-small defn para can be expanded. "The umpire's decision, however, will depend on a number of criteria, including where it pitched..." I think the cricket-fan reader should get a more thorough explanation from the lead itself.
  • the second para is quite vague ( and I think history stuff should mention the three key dates—1839, 1937 and 1972 alongside the changes made in those years and their effect on the game. This doesn't mean lengthening the lead; the three generalising sentences at the end of this para will be replaced.
  • last para: needs to be something about Ball tracking. Could club with history if you don't mind spreading it to two paragraphs.
  • Since you say "The original caption was", don't modify the quoted caption. Keep "of lbw" outside in brackets.

—indopug (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a rough draft of what I think the lead should be structured like. I didn't know how to summarise the 1972 changes.—indopug (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've reworked the lead based on your draft and a few tweaks. Better? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that addresses all my major concerns. Thank you for you efforts!
  • Following one last readthrough, since the article has changed a fair bit, I'll be happy to declare my support. (btw you missed a comment of mine above: in Trends, amateur is used thrice in the "Particularly before 1963" sentence.)—indopug (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • "when two prominent umpires disagreed"--was this during a match? Just appears that way to me because "the ambiguity of the wording was highlighted" makes it seem as though the issue suddenly came to the fore (like in the middle of a match).
  • I'd prefer to leave it as it is, to be honest. It was in two separate matches, and each gave a different "ruling" on what the law meant in their games. I think the current wording is enough to get this across without too much detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere early on in Development, you should make it clear that you are talking about English County cricket. Maybe also clarify in the second para of the lead by adding "English County" before batsmen in first sentence? (not sure of latter)
  • Added a little clarity to the main body, but it is tricky as there were few "county" teams in the early part of the 19th century, and the teams would have been rather different. For that reason, I'm reluctant to add that to the lead. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An increase in the size of the stumps..."--is this relevant? (not sure)
  • I think so, as they were looking for ways to curb batting dominance, and lbw was one of these ways. They also tried this in the 1930s, the ultimate experiment being the 1935 lbw law. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the sub-section titles in Development have years to indicate time-frame?
  • I don't think there is a need for this, and some of the years would be a bit arbitrary. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Controversy and attempted reform"--did batsmen using their pads really constitute a "controversy"?
  • Yes! It really was a big deal at the time as it was "unsporting". In a later period, there was a massive scandal when Douglas Jardine, while at Oxford, was praised by a critic for padding up. The critic was lambasted (by 1920s standards) for some time for daring to suggest such a "shot" was ethical. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alteration to the law: the first paragraph seems confused. The fact of the batsmen's increasing pad-play is reiterated several times even though we already know this from the prev section. The order of sentences also isn't right. Root and Allen say the same thing (redundancy? combine in a single sentence?) but in between their sentences is Larwood's response (which should be clubbed with "controversial Bodyline tactics" sentence to explain Bodyline) and another method of batsmen's defensiveness (which we already know from the prev section).
  • Good point. I think my intention got jumbled somewhere along the way, so Root and Allen are now gone altogether. There should be new developments of a) actively kicking the ball away rather than covering up and b) letting the ball pass by harmlessly, both of which were dull, led to bodyline and concerned the authorities. Does this come across better now? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but Larwood still appears between batsmen being exceedingly negative. You can move it down to the Bradman–Bodyline stuff, but that might create new problems in the flow, as now it becomes divorced from the bowler frustration. So I think this is fine.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initially there was an increase in the number of lbws, but batsmen became accustomed to the change"--probably belongs to the next para, where it can combine with less-successful batsmen and "Out of 1,560 lbw dismissals" sentences.
  • "including the professional Herbert Sutcliffe, known as an exponent of pad-play, and amateurs Errol Holmes and Bob Wyatt. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack noted that these three particular batsmen improved their batting records"--I think you can drop Errol Holmes, who seems minor.
  • I'd prefer to keep him as he was pretty big at the time, considered a future England captain and the one to lead the amateur renaissance. He was also the ultimate establishment figure, and remained so for many years. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Gerald Brodribb..." para--too many "cricket"s in the beginning.
  • Have you intentionally not linked leg-spin and left arm spin in the Times quote?
  • Yes, on the "don't link in quotes" rule. (Which is an odd one, I'll admit) Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""if no stroke is offered to a ball..." on second thought, this law is also wordy. If you can express it more simply in your own words, relegate the quote to the notes.
  • I'm struggling with this one. There are so many factors which need to be included, I thought (and still think) that the original wording would be better. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the MCC revised the Laws of Cricket in 1980,[41] the revised wording was added;[42] this version is still used as of 2013.[3]" → "The MCC added the revised wording to the Laws of Cricket in 1980;[42] this version of the lbw law is still used as of 2013.[3]"?
  • "when standing further away from the stumps" ambiguous wording; could refer to umpires too.
  • "International Cricket Council (ICC), responsible for running international cricket" any way to avoid the obvious repetition? "the world game"?
  • Second para of Trends: perceived umpire bias towards home batsmen is mentioned thrice.
  • "Controversial aspects of lbw decisions"--what about nicks?
  • The sources do not mention this explicitly as a source of controversy. All umpiring incompetencies are lumped together. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. The only major thing is the paragraph with Bodyline. Still I have no hesitation in declaring my

Support: Excellent effort on the article, which is surely a model article for cricket dismissals and perhaps even sports-laws in general. I also thank you for being so responsive to my suggestions.—indopug (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for all your help. The article has improved greatly through your review. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break edit

  • I don't see anything on the ball hitting the hand / glove as potentially being different from hitting any other part of the body. Maybe add (in Definition) when the hands are considered part of the bat, and contrast lbw with handled the ball (not likely in a game, but the distinction does exist). EddieHugh (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a note that the bat includes the hands holding it, but I really can't see any need to compare lbw and handled the ball as they are not related at all. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I mention it because "the ball must strike part of the batsman's body" could be taken to include striking the hand, leading the casual reader to think that a batsman deliberately hitting the ball with a free hand (and the other requirements being met) would be out lbw. This is a pedantic point, but it is about the lbw law... EddieHugh (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I think this is an unlikely conjunction of ideas. I also notice that there is no link between the two dismissals in the Laws of Cricket, so I'm reluctant to include anything on the grounds of OR. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can be bothered to get all the citations to link to the bibliography, if you want me to. Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the need. It is not as if there are hundreds of sources to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was about 30 before I finally got anywhere near understanding the intricacies of the LBW law; if only the nominator had been about decades ago to explain it so cogently! The coverage is clear, comprehensive, objective and first rate. This seems to me to tick all the FA boxes. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the kind words and support. It took me some time to get my head around lbw, but I've always found it interesting. Blame Richie Benaud always talking about pitching outside leg stump... Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- did I miss an image review above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I gave one at PR, the images are still the same.
  1. File:Leg before wicket.jpg is fine
  2. File:Cricket - Wickets.svg looks okay, but seems difficult to follow. Perhaps having no text would be helpful.
  3. File:Ranji 1897 page 215 Shrewsbury playing back.jpg - When did Caldwell die (if available?); if he died after 1943 the image would not be PD in the source country
  4. File:Bob Wyatt Cigarette Card.jpg looks fine
Having alt text might be a good idea.
You shouldn't force sizes. Using "upright" will make an image smaller, but still allow them to scale.
I'm afraid that svg file is beyond my technical capabilities, and I would have no idea how to remove the text. Added alt text to the last image. A little bit of OR reveals that Caldwell died in 1915, so we're fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything sorted above during PR: text taken from diagram since then. Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My detailed comments are found in the peer review. I remain intrigued by the sentence: "Batsmen from the subcontinent were less likely to be lbw wherever they played in the world": has any reason been suggested for this? Is there a particular subcontinental style of batting that makes them less susceptible to the law? Most curious. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason is given (or suggested) in the source; there were some other vague statistical trends, but nothing really definite and nothing that gives a reason. They were even less likely to be lbw at home, as were Australian batsmen, but subcontinental batsman seem to be lbw less often wherever they play. Thanks for the support and comments at the PR. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review All sources used are of the appropriate levels of quality and reliability. Just a couple of format quibbles:

  • Ref 56: The mdash in the title doesn't appear in the source
  • Ref 58: Page range requires pp.

Otherwise, no problems with sources. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Leg_before_wicket/archive1&oldid=1076191764"