Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wally Hammond/archive1

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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 20:12, 13 March 2010 [1].

Wally Hammond edit

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have expanded it from a brief start class article. It has undergone peer review but I did not feel GA review would have been helpful now due to the length and detail of the article. Wally Hammond was a cricketer who had a long and eventful career and quite an abrasive personality. He was famous for his batting achievements and for being the first former professional cricketer to captain the England Test side. All comments very welcome. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. No dab links and no dead external links. Alt text present and good (though I had to fix the infobox template so that it was actually visible). Ucucha 22:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I'll begin a read-through now and massage the prose for flow as I go. Please revert any inadvertent changes I make to meaning. I'll jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.. if he had been a less reluctant bowler, he could have achieved a higher standard - comes across as vague - "average?" for standard?

I don't want to use "average" because of the cricket meaning and as a bowler, the higher your average, the worse you have done. Other words such as level may be equally vague.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I know. It's a tricky one. Maybe "achieved more with the ball (?) ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to achieved even more with the ball than he did, as someone before pointed out that he actually had a good record with the ball. The point is that it could have been better.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may have been to avoid her influence - any more information? Sounds vague and leaves me wanting to know more.

He and his mother did not get along as she tried to control him a lot. I could add a bit more about this but would it not make an already long article even longer? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, it ain't that long :) But actually erading more I am not so fussed about it now so don't worry. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A related factor may also have been that before he left England to go on tour, he received an electric shock which gave him blood poisoning - I'm a doctor and that sounds really weird...

This info comes (via the book by David Foot) from a letter which Hammond wrote before his illness began. I can't really find a way to make it fit so I've removed it. Could an electric shock have had anything to do with it all?--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless he got some sort of gaping wound or something...I think removing it is prudent :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inspired by Hammond's example - sounds...nothing. " inspired by Hammond's prowess"? "good form"?

Changed to "good form".

Overall, the prose is/was choppy with a few too many short sentences. I wondered if there was any material for a "legacy" section after his death? I massaged the prose a bit but think some more eyes will help and will ask some others. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any specific examples? Happy to rewrite any choppy bits. Can't immediately think what might go in a legacy section except how much his team-mates liked his cricket but hated his personality! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need to have another read-through and a few pairs of eyes would be good. I pinged Dweller and Yellowmonkey, and I see some tother folks have helped along the way, so will wait till some folks have chimed in. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments What is "Frith, p. .", and who is Hoot? • Ling.Nut 15:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er... Where is this in the article? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check yer references, mate. • Ling.Nut 14:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, didn't understand before! Fixed now (don't know where the page ref went; I'd put it in before.) --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Several quick ones from me after reading the first couple of sections...

The External links should be at the bottom of the article, below the bibliography.

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The alt text has been adjusted recently to show proper nouns, which are discouraged by alt text guidelines. This should be fixed, and someone with more knowledge than myself should re-check for other issues.

I think someone did this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Making an impression: "former England and Middlesex captain Plum Warner and The Times correspondent all described him as a player of potential." Who is the correspondent?

Times correspondents were anonymous in those days. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious illness: "other than to say he was in a nusing home". Is this a typo meant to be "nursing home", or was this a term used in England at the time? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a glaring typo! --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm sorry to have to oppose this article's promotion, because it's obvious that a lot of work has been put into it. But to cut a long story short it's too long, it's deadly dull to read, and some bits don't make sense. Just to give one example of where the prose needs to be fixed: "Foot documents close relationships with several women over the years up until his second marriage in 1947". Who is "his" referring to here? Looks like Foot, but logic says it's got to be Hammond. This could be a worthy FA, but it's got a way to go yet. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the example given, for what it's worth. I agree it's too long and needs cutting back. I'm too close to it and need to know which bits should go. Could do with more clues about which bits don't make sense. Also, I'm sure lots of it is "deadly dull" :) but which bits in particular and how can I wake the poor reader up again? I think it may be better to end this review soon and do a major overhaul. To be honest, I've wanted to do this for a while, but until a week ago, no-one would comment on the article at all! When this review does end, I could do with some more help with the copy-editing and general comments if anyone who is writing here could help. So far, only YellowMonkey has been able to help over any length of time. --Sarastro1 (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. WRT Malleus's quote above, "over the years" is vague. Which years? However, I think M. is being a bit tough about the "deadly dull". Prose seems OK to me, although I've only skimmed through.

Linking problems: (1) "English" as a pipe will be ignored (target is "English Test cricketer"). So link all three current words and link "Test cricket" using "professional test cricketer" as a pipe in the next sentence. (2) "Amateur" is another deceptive pipe, this time for "History of English amateur cricket" ... hmmm ... will be ignored. Since the top is stuffed with links already, why not unlink this one and draw explicit attention to it in the See also section. Can you do an audit on the linking? Can you hyphenate the pipe "middle-order batsmen"? (That's an excellent, focused link, BTW.) I've removed the chain links from the geographical triple-bungers in the infobox. Readers are more likely to notice single-item links. Is WWII sufficiently relevant and unknown to link? Same for the lower-down WWI. Tony (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've done this... Haven't put the amateur cricket article in the see also section as it's not a great article and does not really explain amateur cricket so that it would have any meaning for Hammond's article. As there's probably quite a bit of editing to do on the article, I haven't looked at the other links yet but I'll do so shortly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has improved greatly since I last looked at in January. Some comments:
- Cardus going as far as to describe him as a possible future England player "possible future England player" seems to me a little vague. Does "future England player" or "potential England player" convey the same sense that you wish to get across?

Changed to "future" as "potential" is used in previous sentence.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- In the winter of 1928–29, Hammond toured Australia with M.C.C.. MCC or M.C.C.? It is "MCC" in Donald Bradman, my gold standard for cricket FAs and "M.C.C." here. I prefer the former. The two full stops at the end of the sentence also look awkward. Also, use of the term MCC for England Test tours, while formally correct, is a little misleading to those not in the know. They are likely to assume that this was a private club tour rather than the England national team.

Personally, I prefer M.C.C. but if it is a problem, I will change it. The England Test tours were by a private members club. While it may be a little confusing, I think it is stretching it to call them England tours. Perhaps a note to explain? Personally, I think that the whole M.C.C. identity of the tours was too important to change their name. For the Bodyline tour, it was a big, big thing that this was the M.C.C., not just England. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- The 1939 season was dominated by worries about the political situation in Europe. This sentence looks a little out of place. It appears you are about to lead into the effects of the political situation, but then you don't. It comes across as a bit of clumsy way to introduce a link to the 1939 English cricket season.

Agree. Removed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- In general I am not a big fan of references within sentences and especially where there is not at least a comma or a semi-colon used. Happy to defer on this matter to the MoS gurus, however.

I'm not bothered either way, so I'll change if requested. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to follow when I have another chance to have a read through. Again, well done. -- Mattinbgn\^talk

Comment Working on a copyedit. Won't be done until early(ish) next week, I'd imagine. --Dweller (talk)
Comment Who won the CC in 1939. Its easier that way. Also it's good to check for using the same word twice in succession and finding a synonym if possible. And with the debut tour of WI, it isn't explained whether it was a non-Test tour, or whether Hammond wasn't good enough to break in YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mentioned no Tests played as WI not yet a Test side.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:18, 12 March 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.