Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Macaulay/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 Karanacs 16:15, 20 October 2010 [1].

George Macaulay edit

George Macaulay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Macaulay was a Yorkshire cricketer in the 1920s and 1930s. A particularly good bowler, he did some pretty remarkable things. However, he was something of a maverick and managed to offend important people. He never fitted with the "establishment" because of his agression and hostility, and so did not play as much international cricket as he probably should have done. He had a biting wit and was not an easy man. Nothing much is known about his family or personal life, and I don't think his team-mates were much the wiser. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - no dab links, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Will ce as needed
    • Are those uncles paternal or did he have good genes on both sides of the family?
      • Assume they were paternal, but the sources do not say so I'd be guessing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are the Wakefield and Ossett teams those that have articles linked in the respective town pages?
      • Again, it's a bit vague. He played in the towns but the sources do not specify a team, so I'd rather not be more precise. I can unlink the towns if it's a problem. I suspect most of this early life stuff comes from his "interview" for the CoY profile, it they bothered too much with the pros in those days, so if it's vague, it's Macaulay's fault! --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder does UK military have online databases with listings of all WWI/II folks and their ranks, battalions and enlistment dates like they do for Australia?
      • From other articles, this does exist, but requires something like Ancestry.com, and I'm always a bit dubious about using these as there's no way to be sure it's the same Macaulay. I always think it's too much like OR, but I know others disagree and I'm open to discussion if necessary. And it's only available for WWI anyway. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Need to explain that MCC=England ~ ECB so the ordinary guy knows what a MCC tour really means and why they would investigate his behaviour. Same for Lord Hawke's post. He was chairman of YCCC?
      • Added a note explaining MCC role and added info on Hawke. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was his batting ever considered of relevance? His batting average is similar to his bowling average which is often taken to be a good guide of an all-rounder, and his averages would have increased in modern times with no uncovered pitches to run amok on? Very little is made of his batting, usually at no 8/9, by my sampling of abotu 20 cards
      • Certainly he was not considered an all-rounder and it was probably discouraged. He was seen as a useful tailender, but I'll see if much else is available and try to find a ref for his batting position other than trawling through scorecards. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Found a reference which shows him batting low in the order. Also added more on his seasonal batting.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the seasons where he gained or was borderline for national selection, shouldn't his national ranking be mentioned too?
      • Hmmm... Slight problem here. I don't have a source which gives bowling averages for each season, and I've given his national position where it is mentioned somewhere else. The only place I know of that gives fc averages is cricket archive. And it just gives everyone, including those with one wicket, e.g. here Where do you draw the line for who to include. It's not as easy as for the Yorkshire averages as there are so many. Having 10 wickets as the cut off gives a few odd results. 50 is too many, anything in between is a little random. And my favoured measure, used currently by Wisden, is 10 wickets in 10 innings to avoid one-off or freak performances. And there is no way to get this on CA. I'd prefer to leave it as it is, which I know is incomplete as such, but is reliably referenced by a very good source. And for the information it would give to include that he was 5th or 6th, I'm not sure it's worth it. But I'm open to suggestions! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Important to mention name of victim of first ball, I think.
    • WRT Fitness and south Africa, teh pre-tour part says "fitness" which may indicate being overweight, unathletic, but later it says the tour improved his health, suggesting illness. Was he having trouble with the wetter climate or some respiratory thing or were the problems about not being athletically-fit.
      • Not sure, this is all from Wisden. I suspect it was respiratory, as weight didn't come into it in those days, really. But again, I'd be guessing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's important to explain the importance of teh PG match in that the best talent is concentrated together and it is a pseudo Test trial
  • In the 1926 series, might be good to point out he was dropped after Macartney tonked him, in case ppl think there were only three Tests. Was he dropped against SA too or the third Test the last?
  • What did he do in the 1924 trial? important match
  • I think more detail could be included about the 4 Tests in SA. From the debut scorecard, it appears SA were in command and were on a 150+ partnership and then he they lost 4/12; he took all the wickets. Who did he replace to break in after the first Test; an injury, bad form or he took lots of wickets in tour matches between the first and second test?
  • Should more detail be given on the 76 v Aus (as he hardly had any notable Tests), although it seems that inclement weather was more responsible than the counterattack, as they had to follow on anyway? Maybe this should be explained more.
    • There isn't much more detail that I know of. I'm not sure rain took any time off the match; without making too much of it, Macaulay and Geary batted two hours and scored 108 which did not save the follow on, but took time and runs away from what England had to do in the 2nd innings. And in a 3 day game, it made the difference between batting out most of the last day in the 2nd inns and batting for two session. However, I don't think it's worth saying all this, and I've downgraded the description in the text! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at the points tables for that era and it seems that Yorkshire, Surrey, Lancs and Notts were almost always at the top, like Australia in the old days, a two-horse race between NSW and VIC, with SA average and QLD and WA as virtual minnows, and the modern EPL and most other football leagues without a salary cap too I guess. Did this lead to a situation where, by virtue of the fact that the stronger teams mostly had little trouble winning against the minnows, that handful of matches against the stronger counties largely determined the outcome of the title (NSW/VIC were virtual finals, mostly). If so, were there any influential contribs or failures that he made in those pages that might be worth noting, (eg a few 10fers against Northants were mentioned but looking at the tables, it seems they usually got bashed, so his 10/ might not have made much difference; many books on old time players/seasons in Australia often put more weight on NSW/VIC matches as they had more effective influence, usually). YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it would be too dull and repetitive to give details of every Surrey, Lancs, etc match in each season (that would be eight games a season to say he took x wickets, plus G v P and Test trials). And these teams do crop up quite often in his 10 fors and five fors through the article (I think all his 10 wicket matches are noted). However, I have added something to the end of his career which describes his records against these teams. I've kept it a little brief and not too statistical as I don't think a long list of averages would improve the article here and it would be boring to read. Is this enough to cover it? For what it's worth, home and away made more of a difference as Yorkshire played on dreadful pitches where 150 was a good score, but the southern teams played on billiard table pitches. However, the Yorkshire attack was generally on top whatever the conditions in those days. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, of course, I meant only if they were particularly pivotal in a close season or something YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 23:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments 2c. looks good Bibliography: Shouldn't Hill, Alan (2007). have a colon between title and sub-title, not a fullstop? Similarly with Robertson-Glasgow, R. C. (1943). Citations: Locations for publishers for items only cited in the citations (John Wisden & Co.) (Random House Australia.). Year position for Wisden citations out of style, or is that what happens to authorless works? But shouldn't the dates be in (parentheses) then?
    • Colons added. Added location for John Wisden & co. And unfortunately, that is what happens with authorless works using the cite web template. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Citation template authors really do need a good sandle to their rears. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pedantry I very strongly dislike The Times (London); other editors like this. I suppose I want to signal this issue I have without causing you to change your style or alter the FA candidate. If someone wants to pick this up and discuss it with me, I'd appreciate it.
    • Oppose 1c: An easy thing to fix: You need to give the calculation method used for Measuring Worth? What did you use? CPI, average wages, etc. Measuring Worth offers a variety of calculation methods. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done, used RPI. Is the ref OK the way I've put it? Thanks for the comments so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Double checked the citation, and corrected minor elements. Cites now look good. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I promised to review one of Sastaro's cricket articles so some comments.
  • where he would later take famous cricketers... - like whom?, prose sounds a little weird for that sentence as well.
    • Tweaked sentence. However, not sure who the famous cricketers were, sources do not say. It was an annual match (which I've now specified) so there were probably many names; probably Yorkshire cricketers, but I'm guessing. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information about his time in World War I, did he see any combat.
  • What made Christopherson and Hayley regard Macaulay so highly.
    • Not specified in the sources. It was presumably his bowling that impressed them, but not clear what it was specifically.
  • three runs to bowl out Derbyshire for 23.... 23 what? innings?. My cricket understanding is poor.
    • Runs (i.e. an total where all the batsmen are out). Specified. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Macaulay figures of six for eight and five for 23" among other statements- confusing wickets? innings?
    • Added a note to explain this - first number is wickets, second number is runs conceded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • concerns his fitness was insufficient... How?
    • Good question: see above, it was probably respiratory (quite a common complaint) but this is guesswork. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • his health improved by the tour... Was it related to his insufficient fitness?
    • Very likely, but this is all the sources say. Anything else would be guessing again. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • openly criticised the captaincy... By saying what?
    • No idea; it is a little suspect anyway, as the ref says as he did not play in the match the source claims, but the source is reflecting a rumour which probably has some basis in fact. Again, at a guess I'd say he challenged a decision that the captain made in the game, such as changing a bowler or placing a fielder. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • despite a very dry summer... Does it means that the seasons depend on the weather?
    • To some extent. As the sentence says, dry summers led to pitches which were easy to bat on as they were hard. Wetter summers produced soft pitches which made the ball turn and bounce unpredicatably. Very wet weather produced sticky wickets which were pitches drying in the sun that became almost impossible to bat on as the bounce of the ball became incredibly erratic. Some of this is in the article, but I think it's too much to explain fully. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rest of the article looks good.
  • Thanks for the comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Secret account 03:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I peer-reviewed this article, which I thought was in fine condition. It has only improved since then, and I am happy to support. If this keeps up, I may have to abandon baseball in favor of cricket. Finetooth (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "His form slumped following injuries in the late 1920s, but a recovery in the early 1930s led to a recall by England, but he injured himself in his second match back." Not a big fan of the "but, but" structure here. Is there a good alternative, such as splitting it into two sentences?
  • Yorkshire debut: No need for multiple Derbyshire links here. That also goes for Surrey.
  • Test debut: "where he took one wicket in each South African innings, but he was omitted from the final two Tests." The struck word is a little prose redundancy that can be removed without changing the meaning (it may improve grammar as well).
  • Mid-1920s career: "while he also passed ten wickets in matches against Leicestershire, Glamorgan, Middlesex, Apart from his success in the Test match". Something is clearly missing from this bit. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stepped in and done these three YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 03:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 06:10, 20 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/George_Macaulay/archive1&oldid=1089084958"