Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bobby Peel/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 12 March 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Bobby Peel edit

Bobby Peel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Peel was a Yorkshire and England cricketer in the 1880s and 1890s. He had a pretty decent career, and was one of the leading cricketers of his day. He would be largely forgotten today but for one incident. He was pretty much an alcoholic (a common cricketing complaint at the time) and was sacked after disgracing himself on the pitch; the modern rumour is that he urinated on the pitch, and this story gets trotted out quite often (for instance a few current English cricketers have had a few incidents involving urine and alcohol, and the Peel story was mentioned as a comparison in a few places). But it is probably a load of cobblers, and it was reading how this story originated that made me work on Peel's article. This article is currently a GA and it had an excellent PR. Any further comments or suggestions would be gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – from one of the peer reviewers. My few minor comments were thoroughly dealt with at PR, and the article clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Comprehensive, well balanced, widely sourced and cited throughout. The most controversial (and possibly mythical) point of Peel's career is most judiciously dealt with. A fine article, packed with information and leavened with pleasing human touches. First class stuff. Tim riley (talk) 19:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and your comments at the PR. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I had my say at the PR and all my quibbles were expediently dealt with there. I feel this meets the FA criteria and am therefore supporting. Well done Sarastro on another fine piece of work. =) —Cliftonian (talk) 19:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help with this, and your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I missed most of the peer review, so this is my first detailed look. As I've said before, the standard of WP cricket biographies is high, thanks mainly to Sarastro, whose articles are readable even when the subject is a relatively unsympathetic character like Peel. Naturally I have a raft of nitpicks, and here they are. The article history indicates a number of prose tweaks that I felt emboldened to make.

Early career
  • "...by 1882 was part of the Yorkshire Colts (the county club's youth team)." This sounds odd; by 1882, at the age of 25, Peel had reached the county's "youth" team? Is there any other way of defining the Colts?
  • This is a bit tricky. Strictly, the Colts wasn't a "Youth team", and such a notion is slightly anachronistic. The "youth team" came up at PR, but the more I think, the happier I would be just leaving this as "Colts", for the players weren't just "young" and it could be almost anyone on the fringes of the team. I can't source this, however, so I'm happier leaving it at Colts. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later in the 1882 season" – there is no reference point for "later". I would delete the phrase, and add the year to "10 July"
  • "The match was drawn,[6] but Lord Hawke..." I'm not happy with "but" here. Suggest replace with a semicolon or, since the result isn't particularly relevant here, begin the sentence with "Lord Hawke..."
  • "Despite the continued presence of Peate in the Yorkshire team..." is a bit strong – sounds as though Peate had some sort of veto. I would prefer, simply: "Peel played regularly alongside Peate between 1883 and 1886", and delete "which allowed Yorkshire to include him alongside Peate" later in the paragraph.
  • "At the time, the Yorkshire team was generally inconsistent, and their results were mixed." Two ways of saying the same thing?
  • Not quite. I would argue a team could be inconsistent with good results, or consistent with bad results. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Test debut
  • "...the team contained nine players who would have been in a full-strength England side". Too emphatic: "contained nine players who, critics judged, would likely have been in a full-strength England side". This eliminates the need for the next phrase ("Critics considered it a powerful team"), and saves me from questioning the "but" which follows.
  • "He scored four runs in his only innings, and, opening the bowling, took eight wickets in the match; in the second innings, he took five for 51 on a pitch affected by rain." Sentence looks over-punctuated. I don't actually think his score of four runs is necessary; his contribution to this match was with the ball. Why not, just, "Opening the bowling, he took eight wickets..." etc. That would deal with the punc issue, too.
  • "He was less effective in the remainder of the series. He ended the series with 21 wickets at an average of 21.47, and scored 37 runs at an average of 7.40." There is close repetition of "the series"; can the two sentences be merged in some way?
Sacking of Peate
  • This is maybe not the most appropriate section heading; Peate's sacking is the subject only of the first few lines.
  • Changed this, although it is a bit less elegant for my money! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording in the lead rather suggests that Peel had appeared in G v P before 1887.
  • "The resulting competition..." in this context is ambiguous, suggesting that the rival England teams played against each other. I'd be inclined to go with "the resulting confusion"
  • "affected the attendance" and "affected the quality" on successive lines
  • "should have had the status of a Test" or "should have the status of a Test"?
  • No-one really questions it any more (as no-one cares!) but I've reworded a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Home Test matches
  • "eight for 12 in the first innings and fourteen for 33 in the match" - odd mix of numerals and written-out numbers: why "12" but "fourteen"? Also, the less initiated might think that "eight for 12" and "fourteen for 33" were separate achievements. I'd say "eight for 12 in the first innings, on the way to fourteen for 33 in the match"
  • Fixed the latter point. On the odd mix, I generally argue here that MoS permits this as runs and wickets are different quantities. More importantly from my viewpoint is that this is what Wisden does: wickets are given as words and runs as numerals. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend pipelink "Lord's Cricket Ground" to "Lord's"
  • "The third Test was rained off completely." Is this relevant?
  • Yes, to explain why he wasn't picked for it. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the winter of 1891–92, he was included in the touring team organised by Lord Sheffield and captained by W. G. Grace." You need to add where the tour was going.
  • For the sake of Tim, you might mention that Briggs was a Lancastrian
  • Oh, I suppose so. If I must. But under considerably protest... Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Australian tour of 1894–95
  • By definition, a "feat" is "a remarkable, skilful or daring action, exploit or achievement". I don't think four ducks in a row counts as a "feat". Perhaps "a succession of failures"?
Final seasons
  • "eight-wicket partnership" → "eighth-wicket partnership"
  • You don't actually say whether Peel's 7 for 23 in the third Test of 1896 brought an English victory. And in what capacity did Jackson present the gold trinket?
  • Wasn't Spofforth a "former Australian bowler" by 1897? He hadn't played Test cricket for 10 years.
  • Took out the mention of bowler, as "former Australian bowler" always leads some pedant to point out that he was not a former Australian! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dismissal by Yorkshire
  • "Peel claimed that he opened the bowling with Stanley Jackson..." "Claimed" is the wrong verb here; I imagine this was a matter of fact rather than a "claim", therefore: "Peel said that..." etc
  • "...Hirst, who was at the match" – I gather from what follows that he was playing in it.
  • It's ages since Pope was mentioned, so I'd be inclined to give his full name here.
  • If the "pissed at the wicket" story originated with Bowen's 1968 article, how could it be "merely confirmation of the already known story"? I don't think, in any case, that "confirmation" applies. Possibly "repetition"?
  • "Peel, having concluded that the suspension would lead to his sacking..." When was he actually "sacked", as distinct from suspended? You later cover Hawke's feelings about the sacking, without saying when the event took place.
  • I think this is the sources being a bit loose with facts. My reading of this (and therefore OR!) is that Peel was never formally sacked. He would never have played again, but that before anything could happen of a formal nature, he signed with Accrington. I can find nothing that says "he was sacked on X", and Pope is pretty rigorous at digging through archives; he gives the formal date of suspension but nothing on sacking. I've reworded this line on Peel but left Hirst's comment on Hawke as those involved probably saw it as a sacking. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in the aftermath of the incident" – as there is some doubt about the nature of the "incident", maybe "the aftermath of the sacking" would be better?
Later life
  • Again you refer to "suspension" rather than sacking
  • See above! He was certainly not "sacked" in any sense before the end of the season. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The press suggested that he would qualify to play for Essex, but he never did." Never did qualify, or never played?
Technique and personality
  • "At a time when international matches were rare..." – well, compared to today, yes, but not really "rare". Australia came here at 2-year intervals in the 1880s, and we went there in between. They came at three-year intervals in the 90s, by which time S. Africa were playing – I'd settle for "relatively rare".
  • "MacLaren, who captained England towards the end of Peel's career..." Not until Peel's Test career was over, and not in England until Peel had finished with first-class cricket.
  • "When Rhodes took over in the Yorkshire team..." Clarify Rhodes took over the main spinner's role in the Yorks team. And surely the Peate-Peel-Rhodes debate would have been some time later, not as soon as Rhodes took over?
  • No, it was actually a debate by the time Holmes wrote his history in 1904, and I think there was some discussion pretty quickly as Rhodes had such a ridiculously huge impact almost immediately. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problem with fixing these, and to supporting later. Brianboulton (talk) 22:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your close eye and helpful comments and copy-edits. Always much appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I still have a few unimportant quibbles, but I'm on a plane so they will have to wait. Good work as always. Brianboulton (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your help! Sarastro1 (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Another peer reviewer here. As I often say here, this is a high-quality article on a cricketer that is very readable and enjoyable even for us Americans who know little about the sport. Well done again. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Anyone perform a source review yet? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to give it a go, if no more competent editor volunteers. Never done a source review before (as opposed to spot-checks) but I think I understand what's needed. Tim riley (talk) 14:51, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no source review, so I'd be grateful if you could! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
  • Page range and citation formats are all consistent, I think.
  • I'm sure "Location 354" etc for the Pearson refs makes perfect sense, but I'm blest if I could work out what it was.
  • As an ebook, there are no page numbers; given that a chapter title (which I've given) is not the most enlightening in terms of verification, I've added the location given on the ebook reader. I've made it clearer in the bibliography that this is an ebook. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not clear of the reasons for including a couple of books and their bibliographical details in the refs rather than in the bibliography, e.g. "Hill, Alan (2000). Hedley Verity. Portrait of a Cricketer. Edinburgh and London: Mainstream Publishing. p. 57" at ref 119.
  • These were books only cited once, but there's no reason not to have them in the bibliography, so I added 'em. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been pulled up on this before but keep forgetting! I've rejigged a little, stealing a little formatting from some bloke called Riley. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ISBNs: I have it in my head, on what authority if any I cannot recall, that for any article we standardise on either the ten-digit or the thirteen-digit form, so that, e.g. Pope would be cited as ISBN 095680439X rather than ISBN 978-0-9568043-9-6.
  • That's new to me, but makes good sense. Done now. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue-links to publishers' locations: you link to Harpenden but not to e.g. Ramsbury. One or t'other, I think, though to my mind it isn't obvious what useful purpose a blue link serves here.
  • I'm sure this made perfect sense at the time, but I can't remember for the life of me what it was. Took out the blue links. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is all right. I think I've covered what should be covered. These small points notwithstanding the referencing is very clear and easy to follow. – Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All fine now. Queries dealt with are now struck through. Tim riley (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Bobby_Peel/archive1&oldid=1076191068"