Talk:Jack Crawford (cricketer)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mykleavens (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Will review this shortly. --Mykleavens (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Initial report

A detailed review has raised the following points which I've listed within each section of the article. You will need to address these before I can proceed further and so I am placing the review on hold for a week. When the points have been addressed, I'll review the article again and provide a final summary.

Lead

1. Lead can have up to four paragraphs: suggest the second paragraph is split at "...future England captain. However, a dispute..."; also suggest the final sentence is moved to the end of the first paragraph where it is more relevant
2. Should say here that he was right-handed: i.e., RHB and RM/OB
3. Mention that he was bespectacled when playing
4. More links needed: batsman, England cricket team, Australia (country), First World War

1. Split the second paragraph as suggested. However, I disagree about final sentence, as final career figures would go at the end of a career, and his career had not ended at this point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Hmmm. WP:OVERLINK suggests that common terms should not be linked. No-one reading this article needs to be told what Australia is, or what the war was, and doing this is generally frowned upon by reviewers. However, I've linked England cricket team. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Early life

1. Heading should be "Early life and career" unless the section is split where he first plays for Surrey
2. Suggest "at Cane Hill" instead of "in"
3. John and Frank played for Kent – provide links to both and also to the Kent club
4. Vivian and Reginald played for Leicestershire – provide link to club
5. Edit: "Consequently, Crawford spent a lot of time surrounded by cricket. Crawford first attended school..." to "Consequently, Crawford spent a lot of time surrounded by cricket. He first attended school..." Watch for too many repetitions of name and, vice-versa, too many repetitions of "he"
6. "runs" and "wickets" are link repetitions here (already linked in lead)
7. Edit: "in that first year" to "in his first year"
8. Edit: "he scored 759 runs and 75 wickets" to "he scored 759 runs and took 75 wickets"
9. link repetitions: "off spin", "Surrey", "first-class", "Kent", "Leicestershire"
10. Sub-sections: I think the section needs to be broken up so that there is one sub-section for his school cricket to 1905 and another for his Surrey matches in 1904 and 1905.

1. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
4. The reason I have not mentioned the clubs is that Vivian played for Surrey and Leicestershire and Reginald just for Leics. To explain this would rather disrupt the flow. If you think it is vital, I will include it but would prefer not to. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
6. My preferred style (and this is fairly normal, particularly at FAC) is to link in the lead and then the first instance in the main body. It is not mentioned in WP:LEAD, but as I say it is quite common. However, if it is a problem, I will remove them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
7. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
9. See above on linking in lead and text. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Not sure I agree here. It means either having two sections which both include school and county cricket (as he played school cricket in 1905 after playing for Surrey in 1904) or splitting his school and county cricket. I would prefer not to do so as his county cricket only makes sense in the context of his school cricket and if they are separated, it just becomes "he played for Repton until 1905 and scored X runs. In 1904 he made his debut for Surrey..." At the time, it was a huge deal that he was a successful county cricketer while still at school. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

International cricketer

1. "the Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)" – article is superfluous especially as you sometimes use MCC without article; also MCC is repeat link
2. It is usual in many sources to capitalise "First Test", "Second Test", etc.
3. "open the batting" repeats a link: would it better linked to opening batsman?
4. Crawford evidently did not go to university; did he have a career outside cricket after he left school?
5. Capitalisation: "The Oval" is always a capital "T"
6. "Lord's Cricket Ground": just Lord's will suffice
7. link A.G. Steel and Stanley Jackson
8. "Gentlemen and Players" ==> "Gentlemen v Players"
9. Need links to both the South Africa and Australia national teams
10. "Australia recorded a big victory but were assisted by rain which made it difficult to bat on the pitch during England's first innings" is an awkward construction: try something like "Australia recorded a big victory but rain affected the pitch and created difficult batting conditions during England's first innings"
11. Watch use of comma followed by "and" outside quotations and where there is no secondary clause: e.g., "...enhanced his growing reputation, and critics expected..."
12. Spelling: "Leiecestershire"

1. See above about repeat linking. I'm not too sure what you are getting at here. The link is to the MCC article, but generally if you are using an acronym, it is always spelt out on the first instance with the acronym given beside it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
2. On wikipedia, it is always first Test. For example, see Donald Bradman, a featured article. I'm sure it used to say so in the WP:CRIC style guide, but no longer! And a non-cricketer will always pull you up on First Test. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
3. [Opening batsman]] links to Batting order (cricket), not its own article. And the other link to this article refers to a different batting position which has its own section. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
4. The sources do not say anything about a career until he became a teacher. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
5. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
6. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
7. They are linked in the school section. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
8. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
10. Adopted this with a slight tweak. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
11. Personally, I have no problem with this, but done anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
12. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dispute with Surrey

1. "Leveson-Gower" – his name had no hyphen (3 or 4 instances)
2. What was the result of the game against the Australians; did Crawford play; and who did captain Surrey?
3. "a degree of idiocy rarely met with even in the realms of cricket administration": he should have come to Yorkshire and observed The Comm-it-tee in action!
4. Anything in sources around why Crawford did not seek another county or was the Adelaide opportunity too good to pass up? I realise he would have had to overcome residential qualification rules to transfer at that time and no doubt Harris would have come down from on high.

1. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Yes, a touch dramatic, but a nice quote. This was the same year that the Wisden editor wrote that the selectors "touched the confines of lunacy!" --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
4. Nothing direct in any of the sources. My impression is that he took his bat home, so to speak. As he was a little offended by his treatment, he would not have wanted to go around advertising his services, and I don't think county swaps were that common by that stage. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Later career

1. South Australia is a link repetition
2. "and later that year" ==> "and, later that year,"
3. "1913—14 season" and "1914—15": shorter dashes needed
4. links to North America and New Zealand (as places)
5. links to Otago and Wellington cricket clubs
6. Did Crawford serve in the FWW in any capacity or was he excused given his eyesight?
7. What was Crawford's job on his return to England, presumably teaching? If so, where?
8. Did Crawford marry and have any family?
9. link to YCCC

1. See above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
2. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
3. Done, not quite sure how that happened! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
4. WP:OVERLINK
5. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
6. No info in sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
7. No info in sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
8. No info in sources. It may be possible to find out from ancestry websites, but these are not accepted as reliable sources. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
9. Linked earlier in article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Style and technique

1. comma: "the front foot, and he played"

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

1. As a general point, I would say the article depends too heavily on one writer and upon websites.
2. Do you have the E.W. Swanton-edited Barclays World of Cricket? This has several references to Crawford, including comments on his "brilliance" and a potted biography on p.167, written by Neville Cardus, which talks about his style and provides some personal information like his height and physique. If you don't have the book, let me know and I'll add the useful bits to the article.
3. As you have used CricketArchive, CricInfo and Wisden Online, there should be an external links section to complement the bibliography.

1. Bear in mind that one of the websites comes direct from Wisden and that the one writer is merely the editor of a Wisden anthology in one book. Another link is to the Times. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
2. If there is anything new in the book, by all means add it in. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
3. When the links have been used in an article, they should not also be included in the external links. (see WP:ELPOINTS)

General

Given the lack of biographical information about Crawford outside of cricket, I can't see that this could ever go to a feature review. I was initially dubious that I could pass it for "broad in coverage" but have looked closely at the criteria and am encouraged by this footnote: This requirement (i.e., addresses main aspects) is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics. The key words here are "every major fact" so I will look at the article purely as a review of Crawford's cricket career rather than as a full-blown biography.

The main need is a thorough copyedit per most of the points raised above. In particular, you need to pay attention to linking by seeking not only to link as many facets as possible but also to ensure that link repetitions do not occur. Looking at the cricket project's criteria for a B rating, the essence of point 4 is "it provides adequate navigation through links, categories and appropriate templates" and I have to say that the article is currently weak on linking. There are also certain naming conventions in common usage such as The Oval and Fifth Test: the cricket project has listed many of these on its main page but they are familiar enough in general cricket reports and reviews.

I will place the article on hold for a week to let you address the points raised. I will then provide a final summary based on the GA criteria. --Mykleavens (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I don't quite agree on the linking, as I have said above, but I have made most other changes. As far as comprehensiveness goes, there are less comprehensive articles at FA, to be honest. The main consideration is what is available in the sources and what the person was notable for. If something is not known about a person, it is not known. If the person is famous as a cricketer, too much information on their personal life can sometimes be too much detail. Remember, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a full biography. Anyway, I have no plans to take this to FAC at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Second report

• Lead #4. I've read WP:OVERLINK again and agree with your comment about well-known places so no need to link Australia and the like. Thanks for giving me these pointers as I'm learning about the site as I go along, although I had read that section before and obviously forgot one bit.
• Early life #4. Agreed; it would be cumbersome. In any case, once these players eventually get articles (I understand the cricket project intends to create an article for every first-class player eventually), it will be easy to find out more via the links.
• Early life #6. This is a very interesting one because what you suggest is both logical and my own preference (I hope that makes me logical too!). The linking guidelines seem to say you shouldn't repeat a link unless the second instance of the term is a long way from the first, which is what I have been tending to follow. However, the lead is supposed to be a concise overview amounting to a summary of the whole article so that, inter alia, it outlines the article's scope. The lead should therefore be a mini-article (not a "stub" as such but quantitatively so) in its own right. Therefore, it would make sense to apply links both here and in the body. After all, if an article is truly a good one, the casual reader should be able to get everything he might reasonably need from the lead alone.
• Early life #10. Okay.
• International cricketer #1. I was meaning the definite article before MCC as in "the MCC". I know people sometimes say things like "the MCC" or "the Fulham" but generally these names are used without a preceding article.
  • OK. Removed, although I think "the" is used quite commonly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• International cricketer #2. Okay, I'll comply with accepted practice on the site.
• Outside cricket. I accept the lack of source information about his teaching career and personal life. Unless someone had written a well-researched biography, you could not be expected to find this information. In any case, the scope of the article is his cricket career.
• Dispute #4. Transfers were very unusual and severely frowned upon by Harris as in the case of Hammond several years later.
  • Hammond was 12 years later, and it was a different world. I may be wrong (it happens a lot!), but I can't think of many players who moved county before WWI. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
• Sources #2. Leave that with me. I bought this book recently via eBay. It's another brick in the wall but it provides excellent overviews of a multiplicity of topics by recognised writers (e.g., Cardus; the article on YCCC was jointly written by Hodgson and Kilburn) and I would recommend it.
• Sources #3. Thanks for pointing me towards WP:ELPOINTS which I certainly haven't seen before. There is just one point, however, which is that numerous cricket biographies appear to have an EL section which includes stylised links to the player's CricketArchive and CricInfo profile pages. These are in double braces and start with, for example, "Cricketarchive|ref=". Given that this is a customised format, I imagine they have been introduced by the cricket project as a convention. There are two on Lord Hawke's page as follows (note that it displays current page name but the link is defined by the html details):
  • Jack Crawford (cricketer)/GA1 at CricketArchive (subscription required)
  • Jack Crawford (cricketer)/GA1 at ESPNcricinfo
    • I'm afraid I don't agree with this one. It may be a nice template, but not every cricket article has this, it goes against ELPOINTS and I have been pulled up at PR and FAC for having links in this section which are used as references. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

If you can leave this with me a bit longer, I'll add what I can from the Swanton tome and then do a final review which I'll summarise directly against the GA criteria. --Mykleavens (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I've found quite a bit in Swanton that is useful and have added it in. Have a look and see what you think. There is one point I should have spotted earlier where you say he drew the crowds in. You need a citation for a claim like that. --Mykleavens (talk) 11:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Some good stuff there. I've taken out a few of the comparisons which would be meaningless to the general reader and one or two of the quotes repeat what is already there. I've tried to tidy it up a bit. Also, I would suggest that where you add information try to paraphrase as much as possible as a sea of quotations is a little off-putting and again, frowned upon. Also, when you put in a quote, make sure you attribute it in the text, not just the ref (e.g. Swanton says: "Blah, blah..."). --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that's everything so far, thanks for your review so far. I think the article is coming along nicely now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Good article criteria

well-written:

(a) the prose is clear and concise –

(b) the spelling and grammar are correct –

(c) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for:

• lead sections –
• layout –
• words to watch –
• fiction –
• list incorporation – not applicable

factually accurate and verifiable:

(a) it provides references to all sources of information in the section(s) dedicated to the attribution of these sources according to the guide to layout –

(b) it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, contentious material relating to living persons and counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged –

(c) it contains no original research –

(d) science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines – not applicable

broad in its coverage:

(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic –

(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail –

(c) it uses a summary style –

neutral –

stable –

illustrated, if possible, by images:

(a) images are tagged with their copyright status and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content –

(b) images are relevant to the topic and have suitable captions –