Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Peer review/Hedley Verity/archive1

< Wikipedia:Peer review

Hedley Verity edit

Toolbox
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I hope to take it to FAC soon. It had a thorough GA review and I'm interested in any prose clean-up required, cricketing jargon and any instances of over-detailing.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "in 40 Tests " link to Test cricket.
  • Should medium paced be medium-paced? Check all these, although I have to admit I'm not entirely ever sure about this!
  • I think it should, so I changed it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "remains (as of 2011). " -> "which, as of 2012, remains."

"*Fixed (and reworked that part). --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • " over the next few years" -> "over the following years"?
  • " Source: [1], " in the infobox, would prefer "Source: [Crickinfo]"
  • Consider linking Sunday school in case that's not a universally common term.
  • "in total he took 29 wickets " you haven't said how many games he played so this "in total" is a little difficult to put into context.
  • No idea how many games it was, but I still think we need "in total" so no-one thinks it was in one game or in his career, etc. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You relink Yorkshire Country Cricket Club here but not bowling average. Is there a reason?
  • Linked average on first mention after lead. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By 1926, when he scored 488 runs and took 62 wickets " would be worth making it clear that this is what he managed to achieve during the entire season and not in some mega-match.
  • Aha, you do link bowling average, just quite a way down the paragraph.
  • "Professional cricketer" I think I count 8 consecutive sentences where you refer to him as Verity. Can we rework this a little for less jarring prose?
  • Ouch. Fixed some: it is a bit tricky at the start of the section as using "he" would be ambiguous, but tried to sort some of the others. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Beginning to attract more notice" a bit odd-sounding, maybe "attract more attention"?
  • "and came top " -> "and finished top"?
  • Not sure about either one, so went for "topped". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The senior professionals in the Yorkshire team, Rhodes and Emmott Robinson, discussed tactics with Verity and his friend and team-mate Bill Bowes, and analysed their errors." I don't know about you but there are quite a few "and"s in this sentence...
  • Took one out and re-ordered sentence to make it less jarring. Better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to take ten wickets in a " maybe clarify that this was "all" ten wickets for those who aren't quite sure of the significance of this performance.
  • Observation - it rained a lot during Verity's career, didn't it?!
  • Oh yes! Bill Bowes actually that when Verity came into the team, it did nothing but rain, to the former's resigned amusement! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC)" you've already linked and abbreviated this.
  • "this remains the best analysis recorded in first-class cricket in 2011" not quite what you mean, perhaps "as of 2012, this remains the best bowling analysis recorded in first-class cricket."
  • "Chosen for the first " prefer the more conventional "Selected..."
  • "so that Verity bowled just five overs" -> "restricting Verity to five overs"?
  • "owing to England's Bodyline tactics." -> "as England once again resorted to Bodyline tactics" (as you've said they did it a couple of times already, I thought it might be nice to reflect that).
  • "he took part in partnerships" reads oddly to me, "he formed partnerships" perhaps?
  • " overs in the first innings,[29] In Australia's second innings" something not quite right...
  • "when he was permitted to use more attacking tactics" what does this mean, who gave him permission? Was it Bodyline spin?!
  • Ha! Tried to reword to explain this without going into too much detail over attacking spin bowling. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link West Indies cricket team.
  • "although other players declined " -> "although others declined..."
  • "the high number " not keen but brainfreeze stops me thinking of an alternative.
  • Yup, linked (but kept the spelling of Sind as that is what the source gives. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HMS Verity" should be "HMS Verity".
  • You relink "Flight (cricket)" here, any reason?
  • I think for the benefit of the non-specialist; it's not obvious that "flight" as a skill and "flighting the ball" are the same thing, I don't think. But maybe I'm being dim. However, it was deliberate, whether it is right or not! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link "South Africa cricket team"?
  • Last seven sentences of "Career in the mid-1930s" has "Verity" nine times...
  • Who was Voce?
  • Clarified and rather naughtily linked inside a quote as he is not otherwise mentioned. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link Leveson-Gower on only the third instance...
  • "the batsmen played in a negative fashion, despite pitches that were very good for batting. High scoring games " don't seem to go together for me...
  • Not quite sure what you mean. The batting was deadly dull, even though the pitches were really good and they could have scored quickly and safely. The result was big, slow scores and someone or other wrote that both sides took it all far too seriously. Should any of this go in to make it clearer?--Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Egypt, Syria, we don't tend to link obvious country names any more.
  • Note 3, MCC or M.C.C.?
  • MCC, unfortunately. I much prefer the old-fashioned look of M.C.C. but it really buggers the punctuation... --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 68 missing a full stop.
  • Ref 103 missing a pp.

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, very helpful. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Hedley_Verity/archive1&oldid=482000690"