Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John the bookmaker controversy/archive1
- 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 16:56, 30 June 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
Article is about one of the most famous matchfixing/bribery related scandals in cricket, involving Mark Waugh and Shane Warne, who had dealing with bookmakers. Article has been copyedited by Mattisse and myself. The article is very accessible to the layperson as it does not require knowledge of the laws of cricket etc :) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – the opening sentence doesn't meet WP:BOLDTITLE. I don't like that policy, and I think the lead is fine as-is, but I'm just pointing that out. —Noisalt (talk) 03:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would unbold the entire first sentence per WP:BOLDITIS and this line from WP:BOLDTITLE: "However, if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." A review to follow later. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the article switches from "1994–1995" to "1994–95", and the final blockquote has a stray comma ("Rob Regan, [1][11]"). That's all that jumps out at me. I know nothing of cricket so I can't say much else. But this article is refreshingly straightforward (no ugly templates or colorful crap) and charmingly written ("unwary cricketers"), so I hope it passes. —Noisalt (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would unbold the entire first sentence per WP:BOLDITIS and this line from WP:BOLDTITLE: "However, if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface." A review to follow later. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – That right-facing image shouldn't be facing out of the page. Rotational (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now replaced. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Despite what Rotational said, there's no requirement for images to face the text. Photographs shouldn't be flipped, see MOS:IMAGES. —Noisalt (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I wll just shift it to the left for the original YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Now replaced. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Nice choice of topic. I'd suggest two things: one is that the "two players" needs to be clarified in the Lead (first use of the term comes after mention of three cricketers). The other is that the Lead is too short. Easy to expand using some of the content from the "Later inquiries" section, that's currently missing. --Dweller (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Doing YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm happy to support. --Dweller (talk) 11:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. A nicely written, straightforward article. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: Only image in the article is in the public domain. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 07:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Pretty sound article, very informative on the subject. Shame we have no images of "John" as the article does look a little bare. Dr. Blofeld White cat 18:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well he's an unknown underworld figure and nobody knows what he looks like YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - As GA reviewer of this article, where YellowMonkey was thoroughly receptive and fixed all issues, I agree with the evaluation ofMalleus Fatuorum. The article has been improved since. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments – Agree with Dweller that this is an excellent topic to work on. I found a few things to work on before I support, but I am planning on doing so in the near-future.
- Involvement with bookmaker: "The next day he invited Warne to his hotel room and, describing himself as big fan". Missing "a" toward the end of this part.
- Move reference 8 after parentheses.
- In the Simpson photo caption, either remove the comma or add "who" after it.
- Secretly punished: Don't need another Salim Malik link.
- Aftermath: "In December 1998, before to the Third Test between Australia and England at the Adelaide Oval". Remove "to". Also, why is there a generic year in sports link here?
- "At the time, Conn was unaware that of Warne's involvement." Drop "that".
- "pledged his organisation's support for the players as, whom he described as 'outstanding servants of Australian cricket'. Remove first "as"?
- Remove second The Age link. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed all of these. How careless YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.