Talk:Jack Crossland/GA1
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Sahara4u in topic GA Review
GA Review edit
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Lead edit
- Any image for the lede?
- You may link English and Nottinghamshire
- I linked Nottinghamshire, but not English, per WP:OVERLINK. Harrias talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- "His best year was in 1882,..." no need of "in"
- In the article you are saying that his bowling average is 10.95 whereas in the infobox it is 12.48.
Early career edit
- eight wickets and conceded 88 → eight wickets and conceded eighty-eight........... as you have done in the next sentence
- twenty eight → twenty-eight
- Link innings
Lancashire professional edit
- Crossland's performances for Enfield ... Whay is Enfield?
- The cricket club he played for. Earlier in the article this is mentioned: "Crossland first gained employment as a professional cricketer in 1876, with Enfield Cricket Club." Harrias talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- twenty six → twenty-six
- ....at the Oval.[15] → I think this should be The Oval
- ...touring Australians,[17] In the ..... In should be in
- claiming seven wickets for 72.[20] → "seventy-two" for consistency
Throwing controversies edit
- ...he was never no balled by the umpires.[8] → it was never given no ball by the umpires.
- ...eight for 57... for consistency "fifty-seven"
- A link to "gentlemen's"
Termination of county cricket career edit
- he took four for 52 and three for 51 .....→ You are not consistant about numbering throughout the article.
- ...at Old Trafford. → at the Old Trafford.
- Old Trafford is just referred to as such, without the definite article. It would be "the Old Trafford Cricket Ground" though.
Later life and career edit
- ...after his explusion.... → "expulsion"
- ...bowlers came to a close,... no need of "a"
Very smoothly written, I really appreciate your work! Zia Khan 06:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, as always, for your feedback and review. I think I have dealt with all of your comments, feel free to ping me if I've missed anything. I look forward to any further comments you might provide. Harrias talk 21:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- Link CricketArchive
- Why are refs 49 and 51 in Italic
- In ref 49, what "(1980) and [1899]" means?
Final review edit
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a: b:
- a: b:
- Conclusion: Promoted to GA status, good work. Keep it up! Zia Khan 18:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail: