Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alan Kippax/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 not promoted 01:38, 29 September 2007.

Alan Kippax

edit

Nom restarted (Old nom) Raul654 07:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Placeholder comment - currently working at article talk page on a series of smallish issues. Will return here when done. --Dweller 14:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto - The Rambling Man 12:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose'. Article is still appallingly POV:
    • “impeccably correct and elegant batsman, [with] an upright, easy stance at the wicket; like his schoolboy idol Victor Trumper, he rolled his sleeves between wrist and elbow and excelled with the late cut”
    • "... small, gentle man with a kindly way about him"
  • Neither of these quotes are attributed in the text itself making it sound like this is Wikipedia's POV. Even if they weren't, the compliments would still be getting undue weight, compared to the criticism.--Carabinieri 15:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dweller commented on my talk page: "Hello. You seem to have made a mistake. Both comments are in quotation marks and are direct quotes from reliable sources. As such, they cannot be POV." I am moving this comment here, because this where the discussion about the FA merits of this article belongs, not scattered over various talk pages.
        • My response: I really can only repeat myself: I realize these are quotes by others about Kippax, but the people that said these things are not named in the text. In fact the quotes are used in such a way that they read as if Wikipedia is merely expressing its POV with someone else's words. Even if this were not the case, we would still have a major problem with the balance of the views that are mentioned in the text: there is way too much praise and not enough criticism.--Carabinieri 08:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the two issues separately. I think this quoting style is common practice in FAs (I've certainly seen it in many) and in writing generally, and it's clear from the use of quotation marks that the quote is the opinion of the authority to be cited. I have no problem with that at all.

Your comments about balance are more interesting... it's not always going to be possible to find critical opinions of cricketers from the past. In the days before proliferation of autobiographies and when the press was muted, cricket was a gentleman's game and players of that era needed to do significant harm before they were criticised. I'm not sure it is possible to find anything very critical - I'll consult with the principle author of the article. --Dweller 11:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know of any FA's that quote like this, but it doesn't really matter IMO, because precedent does not override policy. And yes, it is common practice to quote people this way. But that's because most writing doesn't have the same kind of neutrality standards as Wikipedia. This kind of quoting always implies that one agrees with the statement to a certain degree. Why would it be problem to write "XXXXX said 'Kippax was a cool guy'" instead of just "'Kippax was a cool guy'"? That would make it clear that this is not an view Wikipedia is advancing, but a statement about the subject by a third party that is notable enough to be included in the article. BTW the manual of style prohibits this kind of quoting explicitly when the quote is a full sentence: "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more is named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." The first quote I listed above is more than a full sentence.--Carabinieri 11:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Phanto amend as he sees fit, but while I don't categorically oppose what you're saying, the pedantic voice in my head tells me that the full sentence is "Kippax was an “impeccably correct and elegant batsman, [with] an upright, easy stance at the wicket; like his schoolboy idol Victor Trumper, he rolled his sleeves between wrist and elbow and excelled with the late cut”,[1] who was probably at his peak during the 1920s." lol. Phanto, your call. Thanks for the feedback, Carabinieri. --Dweller 11:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that the part of the quote after the semi-colon is a full sentence (SUBJECT+PREDICATE). If I misunderstood MoS, then I apologize.--Carabinieri 11:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, we're so hung up here on policy and process. Why am I even arguing... I think the letter of the MOS is wrong where its spirit is right... and for substantial quotes, such as these, it would be easier for the reader to see the author quoted without referring to the footnotes. Sorry for being a berk. --Dweller 12:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appalling (adj) – causing dismay or horror. Now, here’s me putting many hours into researching and writing content, blissfully unaware that what I was creating was appalling. Thanks for setting me straight. To quote from WP:NPOV - “Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre," as long as those statements are correct and can be verified. The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true. A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up: "John Doe had the highest batting average in the major leagues from 2003 through 2006." Instead of using the vague word "best," this statement spells out a particular way in which Doe excels.”

Both of these techniques have been used in the Kippax article to describe (a) his influential and elegant batting (b) his affable personality. I didn’t find a single source that did not mention these matters. Quote from WP:NPOV – “Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available.” The article is meticiously sourced and referenced. The people quoted in the text are most assuredly subject-matter experts. The quotes are correct as transcribed. They follow the MOS. They are verfiable.

The article clearly offers these criticisms of Kippax:

  • his Test figures did not correspond with his great success for NSW – ie. his international performances were not as good as his talent suggested.
  • Kippax stood at the wicket after being given not out in the Sydney Test 1928-29 and had his sportsmanship questioned by the opposition. This incident is described in full and allows the reader to decide on the issue.
  • his play was too delicately tuned for the hard business of winning matches – ie. he was a bit too fancy, he took too many risks.
  • his innings of 84 vs West Indies was “unsteady” – ie. he made a lot of mistakes.
  • much of the section on the Bodyline series critiques Kippax’s struggle against fast bowling, including Larwood’s opinion that he was scared. This is the most damning statement any cricketer can make about another, to question his courage.

Is it the responsibility of the FA reviewer to offer a path to FA status by listing objections, saying how close the article is to FA and guiding the editors to ultimately achieve this goal? I noticed Carabinieri’s first review made thesame objection about POV without offering solutions. There was also several criticisms that the cricket seasons and the years were incorrectly written in the article, I take it that this is withdrawn? For future reference, champ, read this [1]. Come at the article from the perspective of improving it. Phanto282 15:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the word "appalling" might have been just a bit too harsh, I still hold that parts of this article are not acceptable for a potential FA. I have made clear from the very start that I am not opposed to the fact that this article quotes what other people said about him. The two quotes I listed above are presented in a way that - to me at least - reads as if the article endorses the views contained in the quotes, but simply chooses to express them in other people's words. I have stated this multiple times. What I called on you to do above is exactly what that quote from WP:NPOV suggests: “Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" is, by itself, merely an expression of opinion. One way to make it suitable for Wikipedia is to change it into a statement about someone whose opinion it is: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre,". But currently the article just says albeit in quotation marks that Kippax was a "... small, gentle man with a kindly way about him" and an "impeccably correct and elegant batsman". These statements should be changed to something like: "XXXXX called Kippax an "impeccably correct and elegant batsman"". That really is a big difference. I have already stated this above as I tried to "come at the article from the perspective of improving it". But I guess you are more concerned with my knowledge of the Southern Hemisphere's meteorological calender or lack there of.
As to the balance of the article: I never denied that there was some criticism of Kippax in the article here and there. Compared to all the lavish praise he gets, this is still very little.
Although I still do not think that saying that something happened "in 19XX-XX" is very elegant, but I will concede that this more of a WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasoning, which is why I did not mention it this time. And I also have not had the pleasure to experience a summer that goes from December to March and I apologize for not having thought of such a summer existing in my previous review.--Carabinieri 16:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS quote: The author of a quote of a full sentence or more is named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote. The two quotes that you mention are both fragments of a sentence, and therefore the article complies with the MOS as written. I reiterate: there are criticisms offered of Kippax and the criticism about him being "scared" is the worst criticism any cricketer can make about a fellow player. The article is balanced and is not "appallingly" POV. I invite other editors to review the article and offer their opinions on this perspective. Phanto282 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh, no, Dweller. I'm so surprised that you don't seem to be taking in Carabibieri's point that I hardly know what to say—but you really can't fit an admiring quote into a sentence in that way, and then claim that it's incapable of being POV because it's a quote. The sentence as a whole—Wikipedia's sentence—is simply fiercely devout; full of admiration; full of praise. "Kippax was an “impeccably correct and elegant batsman, [with] an upright, easy stance at the wicket; like his schoolboy idol Victor Trumper, he rolled his sleeves between wrist and elbow and excelled with the late cut”. My italics. See how the text takes no distance at all to the fervent opinion expressed, but presents it as fact, by means of the powerful little word "was"? No, this quoting style isn't common practice in FAs. I'm sorry, but it isn't common, or acceptable, in any encyclopedia article. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fiercely devout, full of admiration & praise? To deconstruct the sentence. That he was "impeccably correct" means he was textbook, orthodox, followed the accepted method. IMO, not an opinion but an observation. "Like his schoolboy idol Victor Trumper, he rolled his sleeves between wrist and elbow and excelled with the late cut," an observation that he followed the method of his idol which is supported further into the article by a photo from his playing days, which is captioned to highlight his famed late cut shot and shows his sleeves rolled in the said manner. This leaves us with the assertion that he was elegant and adopted an upright, easy stance, both opinions but hardly "fervent" opinions. The quote is balanced in the lead by the comment that his record in international cricket did not match his record in domestic cricket. The quote is cited as per MOS. What is your definition of acceptable? Do you support the article if this section of the article is changed? Where did you get the information as to what is acceptable in any encyclopedia? Phanto282 11:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this stuff about whether "impeccably correct and elegant batsman" is NPOV or not seems to miss the point about cricket writing (or sports writing in general), it is not mainly an expression of admiration: what matters are the scores and averages achieved. To say somebody is "impeccably correct and elegant", is an attempt to explain how the scores are achieved, it is not to say that the person is admirable as an individual. Nobody who saw Kippax or Don Bradman and knew anything about cricket would say they were not "impeccably correct and elegant" in objective cricketing terms (ie they used a batting technique at all times close to those advocated in the cricketing text books), even Bill O'Reilly (cricketer), who hated Bradman's guts. I think that this use of NPOV concerns should be reserved for film stars, politicians and the like, but is a complete distraction when applied to cricketers.--Grahamec 02:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these words have a special meanign in a cricket context then this should probably also be explained. As it is, the sentence is saying that "Kippax was impeccably correct". That's saying that he was "not capable of sinning or liable to sin" or "free from fault or blame" (definitions of impeccable) and "conforming to an approved or conventional standard" (correct). You can't expect people to know that these words have a whole different meaning in cricket.--Carabinieri 05:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alan_Kippax/archive1&oldid=161038204"