Wikipedia:Peer review/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review ahead of a a FAC as part of the {{Invincibles Advert}} Thanks, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

• You said you wanted to know what to work on before taking to FAC, so I looked at the sourcing and referencing with that in mind. I reviewed the article's sources as I would at FAC. The sourcing looks good.

Hope this helps. Please note that I don't watchlist Peer Reviews I've done. If you have a question about something, you'll have to drop a note on my talk page to get my attention. (My watchlist is already WAY too long, adding peer reviews would make things much worse.) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments

I have started the review, by commenting on the lead and Early tour section. The rest of the review may be spread over a few days as I am trying to keep pace with several commitments. I am making minor grammar and punctuation edits as I go through. At this stage I am concentrating on prose, so I'm not commenting on elongated citation strings...for the moment.

• Lead
  • This sentence: "Regarded as the last bowler to be selected for the team, Ring played in only the Fifth Test, taking 1/44 and scoring nine after off spinner Ian Johnson was dropped for poor form. " Readers unfamiliar with cricket notation won't understand "taking 1/44" so you need to spell it out (having done this once you can use the notation in future). Also you need to clarify that Ring took Johnson's place in the Test side. Thus: "Regarded as the last bowler to be selected for the team, Ring played in only the Fifth Test, replacing off spinner Ian Johnson who was dropped for poor form. In the Worcestershire match, Ring's bowling took one wicket for 44 runs; batting, he scored nine runs in his one innings."
  • "Ring took 60 wickets at a bowling average of 21.81, the highest among Australia's frontline bowlers." Precede the sentence with: "On the entire tour..." Then, some readers won't immediately gather that "highest" in bowling average terms means "worst". So instead of saying "highest" I'd say something like: "...which made him the most expensive of Australia's front line bowlers."
  • The business of the new ball rule needs to be more fully explained. I believe that the rule applied only to the Tests. It also needs to be clarified that a new ball became available after 55 overs of each innings.
  • "Ring was used primarily in the tour matches" – you mean the non-Test matches (they were all tour matches)
  • Again, the last sentence needs to clarify that these were Ring's tour batting figures.
• Early tour
  • "Despite replacing Colin McCool and making his debut in the Fifth and final Test against India in Australia during the preceding 1947–48 season and taking 6/120,[4] Ring was omitted." I would reorganise this sentence, since the relevant point is Ring's omission from the Worcester match: "Ring was omitted from this match, despite having replaced Colin McCool to make his Test debut in the fifth and final match against India in Australia during the preceding 1947–48 season; Ring had taken 6/120."[4]
  • McCool does not need linking again, neither does Ian Johnson
  • "Made to follow on, Leicestershire made 147..." Avoid the repetition: "Made to follow on, Leicestershire totalled 147..." or: "After following on, Leicestershire made 147..."
  • "Ring made two" – think of the non-cricketer, and say "Ring scored two runs"
  • "After failing to pass two in his first three innings..." Tense error, and lack of clarity. Should be: "After having failed to score more than two runs in any of his first three innings of the tour,..."
  • "...triggering a collapse of 4/27" will, again, fox those unfamiliar with cricket notation, so: "...triggering a collapse in which four wickets fell for 27 runs"

Will continue as soon as I can. Brianboulton (talk) 15:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Another instalment:-

• Overlooked for selection
  • It might be as well to identify the "other spinners"
  • The verb "peter" requires "out" or "away"; thus "petered out into a draw".
  • Awkward sentence: "He removed John Parker —who had top-scored in both innings with 76 and 81—twice." Suggest: "He twice dismissed John Parker, who had top-scored in each innings with 76 and 81."
  • "Ring then played in Australia's only match before the Fourth Test, which was against Middlesex." This sounds as though the Fourth Test was against Middlesex. Needs rephrasing: "Ring then played against Middlesex in Australia's only match before the Fourth Test."
• Fifth Test
  • You should say who considered Yardley's decision "surprising"
  • "Precipitation in the previous week meant that the Test could not start until midday had passed." Hmm...bit of loose wording here. Presumably it was the state of the pitch, affected by earlier rain, that held up play. I don't know the facts, but your sentence doesn't really tell us anything.
  • "Along with the rain..." Was it actually raining while they played? My guess would be that the humid conditions were a result of earlier rain, and that the sentence could simply begin: "The humid conditions assisted..."
  • "Watkins swung Ring to the leg side..." This wording might confuse people who are unfamiliar with cricket-speak. I would suggest a slight modification: "Watkins swung a delivery from Ring to the leg side..."
• Later tour matches
  • "the incoming" is an unnecessary description for Mann
  • "...to seal an innings victory..." should be "which sealed an innings victory"

I have made numerous copyedits. I will try and end the review tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Last instalment:-

• Role
  • Earlier lack of explanation about the new ball rule repeated here. General readers need to be told all the salient points: a new ball was made available in the Tests after 55 overs of each innings, instead of after 200 runs had been scored in the innings per the previous rule. This generally, but not always, meant that the new ball was available sooner. This tended to benefit the faster bowlers, who are usually more effective when a shine is on the ball, and worked against the spinners who often bowl better with a well-used ball. It might be worth commenting that the current (2009) new ball rule for Test matches is 80 overs.
  • The comparison is made between Ring's strike/economy rates and those of McCool and Toshack. Why Toshack, a medium-pace bowler, and why not Johnson, another spinner with whom it seems Ring was in direct competition for a Test place?

There is a possiblity that he can be dropped for a second spinner in the case that there were two very successful spinners, YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• • Confirming that Ring was a lower-order barsman can surely be done other than with a 34-reference string. There's nothing wrong with giving your reader a general source, lilke the tour record per Wisden 1949, which they can look up to confirm this unremarkable fact.

Switched YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• • "capable with the willow" is informal cricket-speak, not encyclopedic. Likewise "tons"
  • In the last paragraph you refer to the "tour selectors". Earlier, you refer to "Bradman's first choice team" and say that "Bradman recalled Ring..." and use other language to imply Bradman was in sole charge. So who was selecting the teams?
• General point: I found numerous nbsp violations, many of which I have corrected, though I think there are quite a few in the earlier part of the article that I didn't pick up, so please check.

I hope you found this peer review helpful. Please call again. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Note to Nominator: More than a week ago I spent several hours reviewing and copyediting this article. I don't expect you to respond immediately as you no doubt have several other things to do. I do expect some indication that you have seen the review, that you appreciate the time taken to help you with your article, and that you will respond as soon as possible. Otherwise you may find that help is less willingly offered in future. Brianboulton (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it was, hence the changes. Thanks YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)