Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archie MacLaren/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 00:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Archie MacLaren edit

Archie MacLaren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archie MacLaren was arguably the worst England cricket captain ever. He had a spectacularly bad record and managed to alienate almost everyone he played for. Additionally, he was an a poor businessman who was permanently short of money and got into some interesting situations because of this. And he was a grumpy so-and-so. This article is currently a GA and had an excellent PR from several users. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose and images (image check at PR transcluded below). I had my say at the PR, and subsequent changes have only made this article better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support and earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images
  • Potential problem here. Some digging reveals that E Hawkins was not the photographer, but the name of the company, named after the late proprietor. I suspect that the photograph would have been registered with the photographer's name, but that is not available and is likely unrecorded anymore. The copyright owner would have been the proprietor, and I'm not too sure who it was at that date. It was probably a George Thatcher, who was born in 1839, so in this case it would certainly be PD-70; although I cannot trace a death date, I think we can safely say he died before 1943. The other possibility as proprietor was "Miss Clara Wivil", who died in 1932, if this site can be trusted (and it is backed up by the National Archives and Ancestry.com if you dig deeply enough. But I cannot find when the ownership switched from one to the other; it was Thatcher in 1895, around the time of this photograph according to this. In either case, we are Ok for PD-70, but how do we show this? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't think of anything short of actually putting that down in writing. Or, last I checked, in the UK a copyright where only a company is credited was considered anonymous in terms of duration, so PD-anon-1923 might work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone for the PD-anon-1923 for the moment, but I may add an explanation when I've done a bit more digging. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no objection if anyone does this, but I can't say I have any great inclination to do so myself. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Since the above image review, "MacLaren 1905" has been removed. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

  • I'm not familiar with cricket, so I apologize ahead of time for my ignorance of the topic.
  • Can you link "innings" in the lead?
  • An appointment as Lancashire's assistant secretary allowed him to play more regularly from 1900. Is there some link for "assistant secretary"? What does this mean?
  • Err... The assistant to the secretary. The secretary was an amateur position, the assistant paid. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, he was a hero to many as a cricketer I hesitate at the "many" claim here, which goes unsupported. Reminds me of weasel words.
  • paid professional cricketers to bowl at him can you link "bowl" and "century" a sentence later?
  • MacLaren had little success in intra-school cricket during his first year there but in 1887, success in trial games resulted in his promotion to the school first eleven. Can you add the first name for clarification, and I don't know what the "school first eleven" means.
  • Given that the article is about Archie, it seems redundant to clarify this (it is better to use first names for anyone who is not Archie), and I think it is clear that it is Archie we are talking about. I've added a link for First Eleven. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • relatively fast time of two hours Certainly a citation needed here, as "relatively fast time" appears to be open to interpretation.
  • It is covered by the source for that section. I would prefer not to cite every single fact in the paragraph to the same source. And it is not really a matter of interpretation: the source calls it fast as a reflection of contemporary coverage and "standards", and although it would not be considered so today, it was fast for the period. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When he did play for Lancashire, MacLaren was moderately successful. Again, a citation needed here.
  • Ditto, this is covered by the sources at the end of the paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • had success in the high profile match against Yorkshire what makes that game in particular "high profile"?
  • Not directly relevant, but it was (and is) simply one of the most widely followed and competitive games, as it was between two of the strongest teams. It's just one of those cricket facts, and it is covered by the source. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He scored 66, sharing an opening partnership is there a link for "opening partnership", or can you explain?
  • I've linked to opening batsmen, which will come up as a duplicate link but I think it is justified here. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • winning six matches to finish fourth in the Championship What is the "Championship"?
  • The County Championship, already mentioned. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, his successful leadership of led some critics to suggest I again apologize for my ignorance, but is the term "leadership of" accepted, or can you just remove "of"?
  • which toured Australia in 1894–5 1894–95 per MOS.
  • MacLaren returned home via Japan any particular reason why?
  • Not reflected in the sources. Sightseeing is the most likely explanation, and this was quite common. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Old Trafford".
  • I'm to the "England captain" section. Albacore (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no more outstanding comments, and I am inclined to support after a spotcheck on the references. Albacore (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Should "public school" be linked in the lead – many readers may get the wrong impression, as this has a very different meaning in the UK compared to elsewhere.
  • "appointment as Lancashire's assistant secretary allowed him to play more regularly from 1900."
  • I'm not quite sure what you are asking here. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes sorry, my comment is below re that. - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He appeared intermittently until 1922–23" wondering if "He played intermittently" works better, or is this sentence just referring to Lancashire?
  • " For many years, he was Lancashire's assistant secretary" maybe " For many years, he was employed as Lancashire's assistant secretary" to make it more clear this was a professional rather than voluntary/amateur position?
  • "MacLaren was born on 1 December 1871 in Whalley Range, a fairly prosperous district of Manchester,[1] the second of seven sons to James MacLaren and Emily Carver" – is this a run-on sentence?
  • It reads a bit funny, but I'm happy to let it go. - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He quickly reached the school's cricket team," – would it be clearer to say "was selected for" rather than "reached"?
  • "He quickly was selected for the school's cricket team"? - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err... Just testing? Reworded again, hopefully grammatically. I've included "soon" as I think the point needs making that he got into the team quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm wondering if non-cricket fans will know what "first eleven" is?
  • "play off the back foot" wondering if a note explaining this would be worthwhile
  • "pitch in a relatively fast time of two hours." -> "pitch and in a relatively fast time of two hours." ?
  • In the Lancashire section you mention twice that he opened the batting, was this his regular position in the batting order?
  • Usually, but he tended to bat in different positions, hence my hesitancy in saying so outright. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a source that states he usually opened? - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's surprisingly hard to find. Part of the problem is that he tended to whizz around the order. Nothing on his role for Lancashire. The best I could find is in the ODNB article that he "was an automatic selection as England's opening batsman", but this is demonstrably not the case. He only batted 35 times out of 61 innings as an opener for England. I'd prefer to leave it vague on that basis. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attention of the cricket authorities" - what cricket authorities, obviously he's caught the attention of the county authorities, does this refer to England administrators?
  • Again, some hesitancy. I would say MCC, but the MCC did not select all the teams such as "North of England". So basically, it is just anyone in authority here. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not just omit it? I don't think it's worth including. Or even – "His runs (or scoring) helped him earn selection to play ..." ? - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded a little, along the lines of your second suggestion. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "winning six matches to finish fourth in the Championship" how many did they play during the championship?
  • 16 that year, but I'm reluctant to get into this in the article as the number of fixtures varied widely in these years. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your point, but in this particular section it lacks a bit of context. Even a note saying they played 16 matches in that particular season would help; I don't think it'll imply that they always played that number. - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took out the mention of the six matches (they actually won seven matches in total, so I'm not too sure why I bothered to put this in). Does that help? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his successful leadership of led some critics to suggest him as a future England captain" - think you're missing a Lancashire in there, and some critics is a little vague, could this be more specific?
  • Is the reason he was a "last minute selection" to tour to Australia because Stoddard had been "unable to persuade several leading batsmen to join his squad" ?
  • I think that is a safe assumption, but the sources do not make it explicit so I'm being cautious. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " was caught from the opening delivery of the match" "caught off"?
  • Caught from is more standard in UK English. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • would "lost betting on horse races" work better?
  • He didn't necessarily always lose, so I prefer spent. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it'd imply he only ever lost, but happy to leave it. - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and he also received presentations in his honour during the winter" – I'm not sure what this means
  • Nor am I! Doesn't seem important enough to go into, so cut. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, he was severely criticised for conservative tactics in one game, where his approach may have cost his team the championship through the points lost." - this leaves me wanting to know more
  • Added a little more to clarify what happened. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe link Melbourne Cricket Club – also was this standard, for them to organise inboard tours by English teams?
  • Linked. I think various clubs organised the early tours. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tour proved a great success for the team and for Warner" – did they win the Test series?
  • " Other players were left out whom most commentators believed should have played," - wondering if this could be clarified
  • Not really; there were nearly 30 players chosen that season, and lots of "mistakes" were made. I think it is better like this for readability. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wisden source does go into specifics; mentions the omission of Jessop, Jayes and Rhodes in particular. - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point here, though, is if these names are of any meaning to the reader? A few general readers may have heard of Rhodes, cricket specialists may have heard of Jessop, but even I've never come across Jayes outside of this! Adding names may be more complete, but what does it do for the reader? Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but his poor form continued until June," maybe an alternative to "until June" here, as when the season starts is not explicitly stated
  • "bring about Robinson's greater acceptance in society" - what exactly is meant by this?
  • Could a note be added on the results of the 1921 Australian team following their defeat by MacLaren's side?
  • I don't think this is particularly relevant: they won another couple and lost once more in a festival game, but they had had lost their "mojo" after the defeat. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nor was MacLaren particularly popular; in later years, several people for whom he had been a hero changed their opinion of him after they met" – an example here would be valuable. Even if just included in a note.
  • The source is vague, and it was mainly young Lancashire players in the 1920s. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do the sources explicitly say? - Shudde talk 04:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't check fully until this evening, but if I recall, they were young Lancashire players from the 1920s, one of whom may have been Jack Iddon, but not exactly big names. I think the same point applies that I made above about Jessop, Jayes and Rhodes. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was looking at the wrong bit anyway. The source states: "Even admirers who grew close enough came away disabused. "It is disillusioning to one of my youthful loyalties,' wrote the Etonian littérateur George Lyttleton to his former pupil Rupert Hart-Davis, "to realise that the Majestic MacLaren was an extremely stupid, prejudiced and pig-headed man." In Batter's Castle (1958), Ian Peebles recalls perhaps his most notorious habit: "I have heard old timers say he was liable to enter the dressing room clutching his head and saying, "Look what they've given me this time." Or "gracious me! Don't tell me you're playing!" Which cannot have been very good for morale."" Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow – those quotes are quite something. That Lyttleton quote almost warrants inclusion in a note; that's only a suggestion however. - Shudde talk 09:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gibson observes that although tactically a good captain, MacLaren captained a strong Lancashire team for 12 seasons but only once won the County Championship." - I'm not sure this reads very well

I enjoyed the article. Easily comprehensive, and well written. Many of my comments above are minor, and some are queries rather than complaints. The 'Style, technique and captaincy' section is particularly well written. He doesn't come across as quite as spectacularly unsuccessful as your introduction implies Sarastro1!? Maybe my views of success in Test cricket are coloured by me being a New Zealander. Anyway I look forward to adding my support. - Shudde talk 05:36, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support No problems. Thanks for bearing with me and for the very prompt replies. - Shudde talk 09:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and review. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on comprehensiveness and prose. I reviewed this article for GA status and it seems to read more smoothly now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and your earlier review. Sarastro1 (talk) 06:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I took part in the peer review, with considerable pleasure. It was a fine article then and is a finer one now. I try not to comment on images as I am not expert enough, but in my judgment the text meets all the FA criteria. Comprehensively cited, from a good range of sources, thorough but not excessively so, in delectable prose, focused, unbiased, and artfully making the arcana of cricket comprehensible to the lay person. Most impressive. – Tim riley (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extremely kind words, support and earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Consider organising "Notes" in three columns. It looks neater.
  • Ref 10 needs pp not p

That is all I could find. All sources are of appropriate quality. No spotchecks carried out. I will add a few general comments shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these done, thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, subject to the resolution of some minor quibbles. I did a long peer review on this article, so I don't have a great deal more to say. The article is comprehensive, and MacLaren was an interesting—some might say repellant—character. Cricket lovers will want to read about him, and perhaps wonder how he got away with it. Here are the quibbles:

  • "To support him financially, the Lancashire committee gave him a £100 advance before the tour." As the paragraph begins "By then..." (i.e. by the time of the fourth Test), this should read "had given him" rather than "gave him". Also, can you explain "advance"? This normally implies an advance of salary, but he wasn't employed by the county at this stage.
  • Tense fix done. The source uses "advance" and I think it may be an advance on his expenses for playing for Lancs, but the source does not make it clear. I've tweaked it to say they simply gave him £100, but for the later mention of an advance, the source explicitly says it is from his expenses, so I've reworded that too. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need "rendered" rather than "made"? Unnecessarily pompous I feel
  • Changed to "left" (although pompous suits Archie down to the ground...). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am generally hostile to sentences beginning "But..." unless there is a very good reason. Cf "But as the Test was played at Old Trafford..." etc; "But his captaincy proved controversial..." etc, and a couple of others
  • "His batting was praised..." By whom?
  • "His season was ended by neuralgia,[61] and he played nine first-class games to score 478 runs at 29.87" Wrong use of conjunction. I suggest: "He played nine first-class games, scoring 478 runs at 29.87, before his season was ended by neuralgia".
  • "...the points lost through the subsequent draw may have cost his team the championship." How many points were thus lost, and by how many did Lancashire fall short of the championship?
  • A bit of digging reveals that the source is talking bollocks here, to be honest. Yorkshire were too far in front whatever the result of the game as the Championship was calculated as a percentage of points available from "result" games. Even several more wins would not have given them the title. Removed the mention of the Championship altogether. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "MacLaren in turn included Tate out of spite." You need to clarify that this is Gibson's view.
  • "MacLaren's paid role for Lancashire counted against him." Had he not ceased his paid role with the county on taking a post with the wine merchant?
  • Clarified that he no longer held the post (but still had it held against him). Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the winter of 1906–07, MacLaren returned to India." Say why; to resume his post with Ranji, presumably, rather than to play cricket.
  • "According to Wilde, this was to allow MacLaren to play more regularly" You need to clarify what is meant by "this". It reads as though you mean t holiday in India.
  • "In England's second innings, Jack Hobbs, making his first Test appearance in England despite MacLaren's reluctance to include him in the team,[notes 10] and Fry, whom MacLaren promoted to open the batting having done so himself in the first innings, scored the required runs to complete a ten-wicket win for England." This sentence is difficult to read because of its two long subordinate clauses. I suggest a prose rehash: "In England's second innings Jack Hobbs, batting with Fry—whom MacLaren promoted to open the batting having done so himself in the first innings—scored the required runs to complete a ten-wicket win. Hobbs was making his first Test appearance in England, despite MacLaren's reluctance to include him in the team."
  • We have "apportioned" used twice in the "Return as England captain" section. I think once is probably enough
  • "for teams such as the MCC" does not sound right. Perhaps "for the MCC and other teams".
  • Will non-cricketers know what is meant by "he followed through with the bat"? They may think he hurled the bat after the ball.
  • I think follow through (not the article we have here, incidentally, which refers to bowling actions) is fairly well known, particularly in sports. And I can find neither a decent link nor a non-convoluted explanation that doesn't need far too many words. Unless you have any suggestions, I might have to leave this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure about the term "leading fielder". I would say something like "highly proficient"
  • "Down suggests MacLaren was usually correct..." Smooth prose requires a "that"
  • "...several people for whom he had been a hero changed their opinion of him after they met". Does this mean after they met him, or after they met each other?

Overall, a fine achievement. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think I got everything I could. Thanks for the comments here and earlier, and for all your help and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support – I also peer reviewed this article and gave my comments there. As soon as the comments above are resolved, this will be worthy of the star. The article is high-quality throughout and would meet any criteria we could come up with. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support and earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:07, 11 July 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/Archie_MacLaren/archive1&oldid=1136098870"