Wikipedia:Peer review/Adam Gilchrist/archive1

Adam Gilchrist edit

Okay, so continuing the trend of pushing as many cricket articles to GA/FA, I'd appreciate comments on Gilly's article. The things I am aware of at the moment:

A number of citations are still required - help with these would be great.
There's insufficient information on his background e.g. family, upbringing, schooling etc.
I'm afraid of the article deteriorating into a stat-fest so need some quality writing.
The tail-end of the article needs to be better integrated.

Thanks in advance to all who contribute. The Rambling Man 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LuciferMorgan edit

"Achievements" section could be converted from list into smooth, cohesive prose which ties together the subsection as a whole. Prose is always better than list. LuciferMorgan 03:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Prosed", so to speak, with major scoring achievements left, as per Paul Collingwood. Thanks. The Rambling Man 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HornetMike edit

Here's the things I picked up on:

The lead probably needs expanding slightly, considering the length of his career. However, I can't really think where. Helpful, eh?
The stuff on his son Archie's birth can be trimmed a bit. "Gilchrist is married to Mel and has two sons Harrison and Archie and a daughter Annie" would probably read better, with a smaller bit about Archie's "involvement" in the 2007 cup.
- Done, reworded down a bit, and added comment to state Gilly would have been late, but Archie was early, so no worries... The Rambling Man 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The business stuff might be introduced with a line like "Gilchrist is involved in a number of businesses outside of cricket" just so the reading flows a bit more and the paragraphs don't seem so isolated.
- I'll handle that now. --Dweller 10:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The domestic front needs bolstering a bit
- Done, could do with copyediting but more information there, for all seasons up to and including this year. The Rambling Man 18:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth mentioning his first call-up was for a World Cup? Also that it followed his impressive second season for WA?
- Thought his first call-up in ODI was vs S. Africa in Titan Cup, or am I missing something? His second season at WA has been described. The Rambling Man 19:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"He quickly established himself as the Australian ODI wicketkeeper, ousting Ian Healy in the process,[16] and becoming the 129th Australian ODI cap.[23]" that highlighted bit reads oddly, and would work better inserted onto the end of "Gilchrist was called up for the Australian One–day International (ODI) team in 1996, his debut coming against South Africa at Faridabad, October 25, 1996.[2][22]" Indeed, the non-highlighted bit would be better after the details of his debut, as the beginning part of this sentence "Gilchrist replaced Healy for the first two ODIs in..." (although if you did that you'd need to make the Texaco cup bit a different sentence)
- Reworded... The Rambling Man 19:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why was the stumping of Astle significant?
- It was because it was Gilly's first ODI stumping, but I don't think it reads well so I'll rephrase. The Rambling Man 10:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First ODI fifty and/or hundred?
- Yep, links first 50 and first 100, will incorporate into article. The Rambling Man 10:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And first Test 100. The Rambling Man 17:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ODI career post 1999?!
"He made his Test debut against..." wouldn't use the pronoun there, seeing as it's a new section
- Fixed, thanks The Rambling Man 10:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I fixed a similar one in his domestic section --Dweller 10:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Langer his long-time friend sounds a bit editorialising. I mean, I bet they are but there's no way to cite that and it sounds a bit newspapery, if you get my meaning.
- Removed "friend" reference, irrelevant really, team-mate yes, mate no. The Rambling Man 19:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article needs a few more highlights - hundreds, games he captained, vital innings, big wicket hauls, MOTM awards etc. Otherwise it's well on its way. Cheers, HornetMike 01:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nichalp edit

Needs a copyedit just like the Collingwood article. Choppy prose, and at times a POV. He is an emotional player -- worst kind of POV.
Agreed. Have removed the worst kind of POV, and will look for a suitable (hopefully neutral) copyeditor to scan over it. Work to do in the meantime however, I think. The Rambling Man 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Table needed of runs scored against each country.
Imminent... The Rambling Man 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The Rambling Man 18:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a similar top level ToC structure as Collingwood.
Cool, looks like we may have a reasonable template for modern cricketers if this is the case? I'll do my best to bend Gilly into Colly-style! The Rambling Man 18:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=Nichalp «Talk»= 12:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how it calling someone "emotional" POV? Either they are (often demonstrably, crying or smiling, for example) or they are not (I have yet to see a poker-faced cricket player). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blnguyen edit

Needs more of a chronological evolution to show how things happened. I have added in a section about his rise in ODI, as it is not clear (previously) how he came to take Healy's place in ODIs, with the new TEst/ODI team separation (Otherwise, Healy would likely have stayed under the old conservative policy). Added to that I added a bit about how he was not successful at first, batting at No. 7, low average, and got a chance to open after the other guys could not open properly. I should do the bit about the Test rise as well, or Healy's slump. Aside from that, there is no chrnoological description in the article, especially about becoming VC in 2000, being skipped over for captain with Ponting jumping ahead of him, and just his career generally. This might be a huge article though, considering the huge amount of matches he has played (almost twice as many as Harbhajan, which will be 50k when finished ). Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff, thanks. Some of this has already been addressed. Sorry it took so long to say thanks - I've been struggling with monobooks. (That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it. --Dweller 11:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Automated edit

Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR _t 22:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yomangani edit

I enjoyed it. As there was with Paul Collingwood, there is a tendency to assume familiarity with cricket: using shorthand when the full titles would be better (I think I've fixed most of these), and some terms that I'm sure are used regularly by commentators but would be better expressed differently for the non-cricketing reader (although I love "astonishing slogfest" it probably isn't the most encyclopedic of terms). Some problems with consistency in the terms: wicket-keeper, wicketkeeper; One day, one-day, One-day; number seven, No. 7 (I fixed this to No. 7); 2000/01 2000-1 2000-2001. I see Blnguyen has pointed out some areas where it is lacking which look like they would be good additions, but I'd be wary of listing every match: [blasphemy warning] unless something notable happens, how many runs he scored or wickets he took isn't that interesting. I've also left a couple comments in the article in comment tags where I couldn't work out what was meant or the relevance of the sentence (or in one case where there was speculation over Hoggard's sportsmanship). Yomangani ^talk 11:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An astonishing slogfest of excellent comments. Thanks. --Dweller 11:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]