Talk:Douglas Jardine/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: -- BigDom 19:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Just the few points below that need addressing, especially the one about the word "barracked" which is majorly overused here. Couple of minor MoS points, such as the punctuation needing to be outside quote marks. All comments addressed quickly and appropriately.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some of the finest referencing I've ever come across on Wikipedia.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Extremely detailed without becoming tediously overindulgent

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Just the one image, but it is suitably licensed. It doesn't have ALT text or a caption, but that is a problem with the template not the article.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Pass with congratulations

Comments

General points

• Sometimes "Bodyline" is capitalised in the article and sometimes it isn't. Examples: "Jardine persisted with Bodyline tactics" versus "at least twice about that bowler's refusal to bowl bodyline". I don't know which is technically correct, but it does need to be consistent throughout the article.

Capitalised them. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Very unclear: from what I read in the article it appeared that he played his last Test in Feb 1934 and was the England captain until he resigned in March 1934 so I can't understand why in the lead and the succession box at the bottom it says he was the captain until 1933-4. I think this is confusing and misleading and I imagine others will find it hard to understand as well. Why not just say he was the England captain from 1931 to 1934?

Generally, when something occurs in an English winter, the cricket season is called (e.g.) 1933-34, 1967-68, etc. I've changed the lead to say 1934 but in the box, I think it's best left as 33-34. Would a note help? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think a note would be best. Being English, I had an idea what you meant but anyone unfamiliar with cricket would be stumped by this one. BigDom 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• The words "barracked" and "barracking" are used quite a lot of times throughout the article, to the point of being repetitive. Any chance some of these can be substituted for other words?

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• When you have quotes at the end of a sentence, the punctuation should go outside the quotation marks, even if it is inside in the source. Example: old-fashioned amateur."[43]

Not quite clear on how far to go with this. I've changed some of them, but the MoS says here that it shouldn't always go outside. Which others do you think should go outside? --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I hadn't read that before. I was just going off a comment someone gave me at a previous GA review. What you've done looks fine to me. BigDom 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• Instead of "joined the army" you should write "joined the Territorial Army" to avoid ambiguity.
• I think "a paper manufacturers" should just be "a paper manufacturer".

Both done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Early life

• "at an average 66.46" -> "at an average of 66.46"

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

First-class career

• Link to Surrey CCC the first time you mention it

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• "an injury sustained playing village cricket" - is it possible to include who he was playing village cricket for? It would just add a bit of context, that's all.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• he replied "It's ******* mutual." - Wikipedia is not censored. I doubt he replied with 7 asterixes, so if the actual word he used is available that should be what is written here. If the source has it how it is now however, then this point is null and void.

Various versions of the story, but the original version is asterisked and that is the version the source gives when quoting it. Other sources do use "fucking", though, and if it's a problem, it would be easy to find one that does. However, they are probably later versions of the story. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to use one of the sources that does have "fucking" in, just to avoid any ambiguity. BigDom 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Style and personality

• I don't think "could" should be italicised.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• There are a lot of bowlers who he had problems against, so I was wondering whether or not the sources discuss bowlers who he enjoyed particular success against.

Not really. I was trying to get across the idea that most bowlers did not trouble him and only three or four gave him problems. I've tweaked it a little, but if it's still not clear, I'll try again. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine now. BigDom 07:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very well written and articulate piece, and there are just the few minor points above that need to be addressed. Once these have been sorted, I will gladly pass this as a GA. -- BigDom 22:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)