Talk:Laurie Nash/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WFCforLife (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've got a bit of experience at WP:FLC, but this is my first GA review. I feel I'm ready. As a starting point I think this will pass criteria 2, 5 and 6 once the following are addressed:

• I'm familiar enough with cricket to know that the sources used for that are okay, but what makes Stats.rleague.com and Full Points Footy reliable sources?

While I believe both to be reliable, I have replaced the full points references and will do the same with the stats.rleague as soon as I find appropriate replacements (this should happen tomorrow).

There remains one stats.rleague ref as I don't currently have another source for it. I'll keep looking.

• Why is the date italicised for ref 61, but not other online ones?

 Done I de-italicised ref 61, which was a mistake.

• There's inconsistency in the image captions over whether or not full stops (.) are used. If the caption could feasibly be a stand-alone sentence then a full stop should be used.

 Done To be on the safe side, I added a full stop to the end of every caption.

• Copyright wise, the person who created the portrait of his father is unidentified. In the UK if the author is unknown, you could assume that they died before 1939 (our equivalent of 1955). I reckon it's a similar case for Australia, but could you just confirm this? I think it's a great addition to the article, but as GAs are examples of wikipedia's better work I'd rather be on the safe side. All the other images are fine.

I've always understood Australian copyright law to be pre-55. As the image was created early 1900s, we can be extremely confident that the creator of the image would have died pre-55 and probably pre-1939.

I don't have any significant concerns about 1, 3 and 4, and the issues I'm likely to raise tomorrow will probably be of a similar nature to the ones above. As an indicator, the prose is of a very good standard, but that's no excuse for me not to give the review it deserves.

I've got this watched, and I intend to be back tomorrow with the rest of the feedback. Just in case though, let me know if I take more than a day or so to reply to anything. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I'll work on it. --Roisterer (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here are the things I've spotted in the prose. The very fact that I've gone into this sort of detail is testament to how good the prose as a whole is. It certainly covers the right things, with the right weight. It's my first review so sorry if some of these are a little pedantic, and feel free to correct me if I've made any errors.

Potential POV

• "Leading" is unnecessary in the opening sentence- the quote serves the same purpose.

 Done

• Similarly in 1937, "continued to star" seems a bit POV. I don't dispute that he was a star, just that it's more encyclopaedic to let the facts make this point.

 Done

Jargon

• On the first use, the statistics should be explained so that someone with only a trivial interest in the sport can understand. Consider changing "Nash played two Test matches for Australia, taking 10 wickets at 12.80 and scoring 30 runs at 15.00." to "Nash played two Test matches for Australia, taking 10 wickets at a bowling average of 12.80 runs conceeded per wicket, and scoring 30 runs at a batting average of 15 runs per wicket conceeded." I know that's a bit wordy (feel free to improve the prose), but once you've done that once you can assume that the reader understands the statistic.

 Done

• Each Australian rules position used in the prose should be wikilinked on first occurance.

 Done

• What's "a flag" (in the post-VFL section)?

 Done

• Duck should be wikilinked on first occurance.

 Done

Readability

• The third paragraph of the lead is an extremely long sentence that just runs and runs. Consider breaking it into two sentences.

 Done

• I may have missed this. The lead mentions that he was the first professional club cricketer, but I can't find a mention of this in the body.

It's listed under "Transfer to Camberwell".

• In the last paragraph of early life, was it Nash or his dad who entered the hotel business?

 Done

• "with City and Tasmanian team mate Ted Pickett acting as best man." is wrong. If he's a team mate in both teams, it should be "City and Tasmania", and if he's a City team mate from Tasmania it should read "Tasmanian City team mate".

 Done

• In the bodyline, the last three paragraphs can all be joined into one in my opinion; they're all related.

 Done

• 'Nash was adjudged "Finest defender since World War I"' should be 'Nash was adjudged the "Finest defender since World War I"'.

 Done

• In the 1934 section, the second and third paragraphs can be merged.

 Done

• In 1936, first and second paragraphs can be merged, and in 1937 second and third paragraphs can be merged.

 Done

• Transfer to Camberwell: the third and fourth paragraphs can be merged, and the order need tweaking. One minute he's winning the 1939 Best and Fairest, the next he's making his Camberwell debut in 1938.

 Done There are references to both his footballing and cricketing careers.

• Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the postwar sport section can probably be merged. I think a good case can be made for either keeping them separate or consolidating them.

 Done

Miscellaneous

• I'm not an expert on them, but I believe that a semi colon shouldn't be followed by "and". In the second paragraph I think you can remove the "and," from that sentence.

 Done

• Numbering should always be consistent when mentioning two of the same or comparible things, per WP:ORDINAL. I've edited the Tasmania section as an example of what I mean.

 Done

• In 1935, ref should come after comma.

 Done

• In the second paragraph of cricketing wilderness it might be worth explaining the significance of 10/35. Obviously care needs to be taken not to be POV, but a casual reader probably won't be aware just how rare this achievement is, and/or that an innings consists of a total of 10 wickets.

 Done I hope what I've done is ok - I didn't want to have to spend too much time trying to explain the significance of ten wickets.

• (I know this is pedantic) but £ should probably wikilink to Australian pound on the first occurance. I only say this because not everyone will be aware that Australia once used pounds.

 Done

• On a related note, why are both £ and ₤ used in the article?

 Done changed so that it's consistent (I hadn't realised I'd used two different symbols)

• "One rumour purported that Nash had used a martial arts move he had been taught in the army to knock Chitty out" should be followed by a comma.

 Done

Good work. I'm afraid I'm busier than I had expected this week. I don't forsee any problems in promoting, but it would be wrong of me to do it without going through the changes and having a last quick read through. Any changes that needed to be made on that last read I would do myself, unless it's something major that I've missed. I promise that this will happen within the next 72 hours, just thought I should keep you up to date. WFCforLife (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I appreciate your input. --Roisterer (talk) 05:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I did intend to do any changes myself, but I genuinely am not sure what a flag is. I'm guessing it is a league win, but I'm not certain enough to edit. I'm not calling for the word to be removed (indeed I encourage it to be kept), but it does affect the understanding of the paragraph at the moment. A wikilink, or a brief definition footnote of the form <ref>A flag is...</ref> would be fine. Drop me a message when that's done, and I'll gladly promote. WFCforLife (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)