Hugh Trumble
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I am seeking feedback on MOS issues and advice on minimsing jargon to make it accessible to non-cricket enthusiasts. The article seems to me to be well referenced but a check on this would also be appreciated along with the vigorous elimination of peacock terms. The goal as always is to improve the article to Featured standard. Thanks in advance for your assistance. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
A few quick comments.. shall review properly later.
- He is one of only three bowlers to twice take a hat-trick in Test cricket, both against England at the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG), two years apart. Too detailed and long-winded for the intro.
- Agreed and fixed.
- In 1899, Trumble scored 1,183 runs and took 142 wickets, the first player since George Giffen to make the 1000 run – 100 wicket "double" in an English season as part of a touring team. - Misleading. Giffen last did it in 1896. No team toured England between 1896 and 1899.
- Reworded, please let me know what you think.
- He was unable to secure a permanent place in the Australian side until 1896 when he was named one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year. Personal taste -feel free to disagree. Not sure whether the permanent place and CoY go together. I can understand if you say something like "He was unable to secure a permanent place in the Australian side until 1896 when he scored 2000 runs in the tour of England" because the runs probably helped him in getting him a permanent spot, but the permanent place does not directly follow from CoY.
- True, pondering this one.
- He dismissed Bernard Bosanquet, Plum Warner and Dick Lilley with his last three balls in Test cricket. I too was somehow under the impression that the wickets were with his last three balls, but the scorecard has them as the 6,7,8th wickets, with Trumble himself taking the ninth 40 runs later. Tintin 05:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, just goes to show you can't always believe what you read. From Robinson, "He finished with a hat-trick with his last three balls". Of course, the scorecard is the more reliable source and I have reworded. Shame, I thought that was a great way to finish off the lead. Thanks for the pointers to date. -- Mattinbgn\talk 09:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments from Dweller a newcomer can't understand the meaning of a "bowling all-rounder" by links to the two different terms. Some peacock words - better to use others' words to praise him than for Wikipedia to do so. The follow-on story is difficult to understand even for someone familiar with cricket, and needs explanation (were his bowlers tired?) --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Agree on "bowling all-rounder" - would a link to all-rounder for the entire term be better? I will reword the follow-on story to hopefully make it a little clearer. With peacock terms, I will have another look through the article. Are there any in particular that stand out? Thanks very much for your comments. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Follow-on story now reworded and hopefully a little easier to understand. Please let me know what yout think. Thanks again, Mattinbgn\talk 23:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
- Comments by Daniel
- A tall—6-foot-4-inch (193 cm)—and thin off spinner — must confess the quadruple dash using different styles of dash distracted me a tad and made me wonder if it could be expressed in a different way to remove some of the dashes.
- I hope this is better, perhaps the exact height is not needed in the lead.
- Trumble delivered the ball at medium pace — at 115-120km/h like Symonds/Harris (who are classed as medium pacers)?
- No radar in those days :) From Pollard, "He bowled an impeccable length at right arm medium, with a sharp break from the off, could swing the ball when it was new..."
- He was unable to secure a permanent place in the Australian side until 1896 when he was named one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year. — did he secure his place as a result of being named in WCotY? Would replacing "1896 when" with "1896, the season" clear this up?
- I have used your very elegant solution. Thanks.
- Link Northern Ireland and Scotland in Early life and career?
- done
- Elizabeth, nee Clark — does "nee" need a little accent or something, like debut has?
- done
- He won the club bowling average taking 36 wickets at an average of 6.77 runs per wicket — would that be better as "club bowling award taking" to avoid the repetition and clarifying exactly what he won?
- Ugh, that was a horrible sentence! I have reworded and I think it has improved somewhat.
- The 1890 Australian team touring England was relatively inexperienced, missing the all-round ability of George Giffen who had refused to tour. — ...because? This left a metaphorical itch that I think could be scratched in the article :)
- Done. The original source I used did not a give a reason and some further research was required
- Batting he made 1 not out and 5" — was that at No. 11?
- No. 11 in the first dig, "promoted" to No. 10 in the second.
- When Andrew Stoddart's English team visited Australia in 1894–95, Trumble played only the one Test, the Second in Melbourne. — was that at the 'G?
- The MCG is, of course, the only Test ground ever used in Melbourne. Reworded to make it clear.
- Trumble took 3 wickets for 15 runs in the first innings as England were bowled out for only 75 runs. — any chance of removing or replacing on of the "runs"?
- done
- The leading cricket journalist. Tom Horan said — I think that should be a comma after "journalist".
- done
- great bowlers of Australia.".[20] — double punctuation.
- fixed
- On that last point, I think you should quote (or at least paraphrase directly) Wisden in the lead saying that they felt he was one of the great bowlers of Australia. That's, like, a seriously big accolade coming from them :)
- Good idea, added
- England won the First Test at Lord's by 6 wickets, Trumble taking one wicket in each innings of the match.[23] The Second Test at Old Trafford was a closely fought affair. — would adding a "more" immediately before "closely fought" make this sound a touch better?
- Certainly aids the flow of the article
- Against excellent bowling and in a tense atmosphere, the pair managed to bat Australia home, the last 25 runs scored mainly in singles and taking a hour to score.[24] — "an hour", and is there any way to remove the duplicate "score"?
- reworded to remove duplicate and even linked Single (cricket). I had no idea such a stub existed!
- In turn, the Australians restricted England to a mere 84 runs leaving Australia 111 runs to win in their second innings; Trumble taking 6 wickets for 30 runs.[26][27] — mentioning Australia's second innings then coming back to England's second innings threw me off a touch when reading this; maybe add the "Trumble taking ..." bit after "84 runs", joined at start and end by commas?
- reworded, partly using your suggestion
- with Monty Noble bowling the English out for 150 runs in the second innnings. — he took all 10?
- No, Trumble took some too :) reworded for clarity.
- In the Fourth Test, Trumble combined with Hill in a 165 run partnership for the seventh wicket, described by Wisden as the turning point in the innings. — turning point of the Test/match, rather?
- quite as well as in 1896" and "He never — should that be ""[he] never"?
- Agreed and fixed
There's half the article; I'll try get to the second half tomorrow :) Cheers, Daniel (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments ('ll be adding a few at a time)
- The leading cricket journalist, Tom Horan said "that as much as he personally liked Trumble, he could not see him as a member of a team for England"
- Is it possible to avoid quotes 'cause third person in quotes looks a little awkward.
- Shouldn't be in quotes as it is a paraphrase of Horan ("Felix") rather than Horan's own words.
- but with 25 runs still to make. Against excellent bowling and in a tense atmosphere, the pair managed to bat Australia home with the last 25 runs taking an hour to score
- One 25 could be removed.
- Absolutely and done.
- There are a few lines here are there which could be phrased better. Being a hopeless writer myself, don't have alternatives to offer, though :
- (a) During that season a wicketless stretch left Trumble thinking his chances of selection in the Australian team to tour England in 1890 had passed him by.
- Reworded and hopefully less awkwardly written
- (b) 5 wickets for only 10 runs.[28][29] England fought back to bowl the Australians out for 119. In turn, the Australians restricted England to a mere 84 - are the adjectives like mere and only really necessary ?
- No they are not. They are an intrusion of editorial opinion, have a whiff of POV and certainly not encyclopaedic. I have removed them.
- The Australians won 13 matches on tour, losing 16 and drawing 9.
- I suppose these are first class matches. A few lines later it is mentioned that HT appeared in 38 matches and it seems that these include all matches. It is slightly confusing. Tintin 04:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- During his term as secretary, the Melbourne Cricket Ground grew to a stadium capable of seating 70,000 spectators. The figure of 70,000 appears twice and needs to be looked at again. I quote from the article on MCG in the Oxford Companion to Australian Cricket (also known as A to Z of Australian cricket ):
- The MCG's first reinforced concrete and steel girder stand (the Southern stand) was completed in 1937, raising its capacity to over 1,00,000 and making the stadium completely encircled by grandstands. After losing the first two Tests in the 1936/37 series, Bradman scored a chanceless 270 at the MCG in the Third Test. Jack Fingleton assisted him in a record sixth wicket stand of 346, watched by a daily record crowd of 87798 spectators, a record match aggregate of 350534. The article says that when Bradman made a duck in the Bodyline series, the ground held a capacity crowd of over 60,000. I have Richard Cashman's Have a go yer mug somewhere in this house, and it should give more specific data about the capacity and crowds, but it is very difficult to dig it out of the mess here. Tintin 06:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
- My source for that claim was Roland Perry's Captain Australia, make of that what you will :) The quote, "He was secretary of the Melbourne Cricket Club between 1911 and his death in 1938, a period during which the MCG grew into a mighty stadium capable of holding crowds of 70,000"
- From Ken Piesse's Cricket's Colosseum: 125 years of cricket at the MCG, has 87,798 in attendance in 1936–37 as well. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Comments from SGGH
Forgive me if I repeat any of the above, but a quick scan shows that you have addressed most-to-all of them so I shouldn't.
I suggest:
- "trumble took 141 wickets in test cricket -" could be "Trumble took 141 test wickets - " just to improve the flow slightly
- That wording would certainly improve the flow but I feel the current wording is easier for the lay reader, with little or no interest in cricket, to follow. One of the difficulties I have faced during the FA process with cricket bios is the jargon and other cricket terminology. FA reviews latch on to every piece of jargon or unclear terminology and as a result I have tried to be as clear as possible in this article, especially in the lead. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- the source in the infobox should be named, not left as [1]
- the cigarette card image could be a little bigger for detail
- The pictures are at default size. I could tinker with them but I don't think overriding user preferences is generally recommended. -- 11:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- the last paragraph of the "early struggle" is a little short and could possibly be merged into the preceding one
- I would increase the size of the career run graph, and possibly put it in a stats section below like I did with Geoffrey Boycott, but only a suggestion :)
- base of the Established cricketer section, "Australia won the Test series one Test to nil" could just be "one nil"
- group photo in hat trick section could be a little larger for detail
- I'm not sure what MoS is on having refs section above notes, you might have it right or there might be no consensus but might want to check
Hope those comments help. SGGH speak! 15:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)