Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ian Johnson (cricketer)

< 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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:19, 25 July 2008 [1].

Ian Johnson (cricketer) edit

Nominator(s): Mattinbgn\talk

I believe this article—part of a Featured Topic drive focusing on the Australian cricket team in England in 1948—meets the featured article criteria. The article has had a peer review and is fully and widely referenced, comprehensive and written from a neutral point of view. This is a self-nomination. Mattinbgn\talk 12:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - sources look good, links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "He captained the Australian team in 17 Tests, winning 7 and losing 5." - you should explain this, since what I first thought when seeing it was, "But 7+5=12, not 17." Are there draws?
  • "Despite this record, his term as national captain was best known for the loss..." -> "Despite this record he was best known as the captain who lost...", less confusing.
  • "Johnson made his first-class cricket debut, aged 17, for Victoria in..." -> "Johnson made his first-class cricket debut at age 17 for Victoria in..."
  • "The tour of the West Indies later that season was a cricketing and diplomatic triumph for Johnson; the Australians winning the series comfortably while avoiding the disturbances surrounding the visit to the islands by the English 12 months earlier." - this just sounds rather... awkward. Could you rephrase it?
  • "he retired from all forms of cricket aged 39." -> "he retired from all forms of cricket at age 39."

Prose doesn't look bad in general. Nousernamesleft (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would be interested in hearing further suggestions etc. if you have them. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Aged only 16, and still a schoolboy at Wesley College," → "16 years old and still a schoolboy at Wesley College,"? Gary King (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really like starting a sentence with figures if I can avoid it. If you are still uncomfortable with the wording I will see what I can do. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, that is a very good point. It should be "Sixteen years old..."; and yeah, I feel uncomfortable specifically with "Aged only 16", which just doesn't sound very natural to me. Gary King (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Will the cricket articles ever stop coming here? Until they do, I guess another review is in order.

  • "with a firther 5 drawn." Typo.
  • Only recently added, but should have been picked up. Thanks. -- Mattinbgn\talk
  • Test career, Debut and early Test career: "and the match was drawn; Johnson failing to take a wicket. This is awkward and I recommend changing to "failed to take a wicket." Works better with the semi-colon.
  • Bradman's Invincibles: "Johnson was one of Don Bradman's team touring England in 1948." I would put it as "Johnson was a member of...".
  • Decline in form: Why is The Ashes in italics here?
  • They were all originally in italics but I was convinced by an earlier copy-editor they were unnecessary. It appears I missed plenty :-(. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson had another lean series; taking only eight wickets at an average of 32.75." Change the semi-colon into a comma.
  • Yep -- 01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Captaincy, Selection: "cricket establishment; an alumnus..." Try cricket establishment; he was an alumnus...".
  • Ashes defeat: Ashes in italics again. I haven't seen this in the other cricket articles I've looked at.
  • during the match, however..." I would prefer a semi-colon here.
  • Caribbean success: "With the "White Australian policy" in place at time." At the time.
  • Johnson cultivated an relaxed manner with the locals" Typo an→a.

It's a very good piece, but I am finding some punctuation oddities. It wouldn't hurt to have someone do a quick check for more. Giants2008 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will see who I can find. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by User:Dweller
  • I find his batting record so sub-mediocre that I'm questioning the description of him as a "bowling all-rounder". In 1st class cricket he barely broke 20 as an average and in Tests it was below 20. 2 hundreds in nearly 200 matches; even allowing for the lower scores of his era, I think that's a generous and POV description. The fact that he played most innings at number 8 in the order and had most success at 8 and 10 (see Stats Guru) seems to back up my assertion.
  • Not many Australians have taken 100 wickets and made 1000 runs in Test cricket, even today. From the article "...  making him one of only eleven Australians to achieve the "double" of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in Test cricket." However, I can't find a source that uses the word "all-rounder" to describe him so it has been removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • More POV alert (or OR) "Despite this record, he is best known as the captain who lost consecutive Ashes series against England." Unsourced - and there's no legacy section where such a claim could be discussed and reffed.
  • There is no legacy section, but there is a legacy paragraph (His record as the Australian captain was mixed ...") in the Home and Retirement section. I can't see that it is of much use creating a specific legacy section for a cricketer and captain who did not have the impact of, say, a Bradman, a Chappell or even a Taylor, especially if it is added for the sake of allowing a reference. Having said all that, I can reff the claim that concerns you, either in the lead or as an addition to the "legacy paragraph" Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now modified and hopefully satisfies your concerns -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He would not play first-class cricket again for three years". Presumably because he was deemed not good enough, but to avoid OR, do you have a source?
  • Tasmania were not a Sheffield Shield team until 1977 and for most of their history they were substantially weaker than the other f-c teams. Because of this, the matches were often used to trial young cricketers and to give them some encouragement and contact with the experienced team members. This would be similar to the practise of the English Counties in matches against the University teams. Johnson was only a schoolboy, albeit a very promising one, but with family connections in high places. It is not unreasonable to suppose he was given an early opportunity that he would not have been given had the matches counted toward the Sheffield Shield. Note this is all speculation and unsourced and can't be included in the article. What I could say is something along the lines, "Johnson was given an opportunity to play first-class cricket while still a schoolboy, against Tasmania, in a non-Sheffield Shield match" or some such. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He secured his place in the Victorian team in the 1939–40 season" Parag is already talking about that season? Did those performances secure the place? Puzzled.
  • There is a good reason you were puzzled, the article was incorrect! The earlier mention of "1939–40" should have read "1938–39" Now fixed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making his Sheffield Shield debut against South Australia in Adelaide in November 1939" He's already played 4 1st class matches. Were they not Shield games? Specify.
  • As above, Tasmania did not compete in the Sheffield Shield until 1977. In a real sense, his Sheffield Shield debut is his first real entry into meaningful high class cricket. I am not sure how you want me to be more specific. The sentence seems clear to me; "making his Sheffield Shield debut". Can you clarify please? -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on it. --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the insightful comments and copy-edit to date. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for delay. Back on it now. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure you always need to give the details of every single Test, but as you have done, the omission of 4th Test in 1948 stands out.
  • It wasn't included because Johnson did nothing worth including. While the match is obviously notable, Johnson as a player did little other than continue with his mediocre form. I will discuss my rationale for including individual matches later
  • Why would the South Africans be particularly weakened by WWII, more so than the Aussies? I would asume the opposite would be the case.
  • This may be a stretch by myself and could do with some rewording if the sentence is capable of misinterpretation: from the source "The complete lack of success by the national side since the war set the Union selectors a tremendous problem, and they were not helped by a leg injury to Athol Rowan, who could not play in any of the Tests." Note the article as written doesn't claim any causation, merely correlation: "Against a South African team weakened following the Second World War ..." I think it is entirely reasonable that South African cricket—much weaker and less established than cricket in Australia—would be more affected by the interruption to international cricket caused by the war. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I'm not sure if anything would really be lost by deleting that entire sentence.
  • Respectfully disagree. South African cricket was particularly weak at that stage and Johnson's performance in that series should be seen in that light. Happy to consider a reword. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure you've been consistent about use of singular/plural when referring to a team. Either way works, just check you've been consistent.
  • I always (try to) use the singular. Found a couple that were in the plural and changed them. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further to the above, there's a notable flaw, that the text lingers lovingly on the Test-by-Test details early in his career (which I think is too detailed for an encyclopedia article) before skipping through later series.
  • I have done a bit of an analysis of Test-by-Test mentions at Talk:Ian Johnson (cricketer)#Analysis of mentions in individual Tests. The only series where I see it as perhaps an issue is the 1946-47 series vs England and I think that the mentions are justified. The 1948 series is a rather special one and I was keen to expand on Johnson's role, particularly in the light of the Featured Topic.
  • Pains me to say it, but there's inconsistency in spacing around mdashes. Grr.
  • Found two and fixed them. I could have sworn I had them all. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite his normally reliable fielding (+wikilink?) and specify number of catches fluffed.
  • I can't find where I got that from. I can't find a source so it has been removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current ref 47 (Aussie Daily Teleg). Is that verbatim? If so, needs a "[sic]" for lack of apostrophe in "selectors'". Also, citation needs a date after another pipe (to make what's currently a loose comma useful!)
  • Apostrophe added per source (my typo). I don't have a date for the editorial, I used an indirect source (Haigh). Further, all {{quote}}s in the article have that hanging comma and for most of them I do not even have a year! Is this a problem with the template? If so, any suggestions on a replacement. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • [citation needed] tag added. Sorry. It's probably the same source as the next sentence, but needs its own, in case they get separated at some time, because it's an important claim. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right, it was the next sentence. Has now been added. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • C-e restarted. Sorry for delays. I've added a couple of tags and hidden comments today
  • Article includes quote:"Just cos you are one of the old blokes in the side doesn't mean you don't have to bloody well put in you know." Is it unpunctuated in the source, too? I'd have a comma after "in". I assume "put in" means make an effort
  • Similar issue with punctuation in "Well I saw John's shoulders sag, and he looked so crestfallen that on the spur of the moment I nodded to the umpire and walked."

For now --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That shouldn't be too hard to find. I suspect the family picture was retrieved from a photo editor at a newspaper who wanted a head shot of Johnson for another purpose. I did think of asking if someone may be able to restore it, but it actually looks quite interesting the way it is! -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks awful. His wife and kids aren't notable, so just remove it. --Dweller (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it looks that bad. It also illustrates a topic discussed in the article; Johnson's family. If removing it is necessary for FA, then I will remove it but I am not convinced. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, perhaps I can get it fixed up and then add it. An image of the family is useful but not essential, giving me time to fix it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think so. I am still waiting to see if the sourcing information on Image:Ian Johnson.jpg can be made more specific. If it was any other image than the infobox headshot, I would have removed it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now replaced the Ian Johnson headshot and will ask NE2 if he is now satisfied. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image now replaced with an image of much more certain date.' -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be dense, but I'm not seeing how that's "much more certain". --NE2 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK - thank you. I believe everything checks out now. (You Aussies have it easy with that 1955 rule!) --NE2 05:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I had a look at this earlier this month and would have supported then. A cursory glance at the most recent version (and the diff since) suggests that nothing has gone backwards. Again, great work. Daniel (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support and your copy-editing. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Well-written; congrats. You guys make a good team. Pity the dates are stuck on autoformatting in the infobox. The "half" symbol in the infobox is larger than life; can you cut it down to size? Errant comma after "Telegraph,", end of blockquote. Oh, I see this after all the attributions; looks odd. Can't you just jam the ref number up against the last word? the "Johnson bowling" caption shouldn't have a dot: it's just a nominal group, isn't it? Check others. TONY (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. I am looking at what I can do about the commas -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was going to wait until Dweller finished his round of comments before supporting, but Tony's support indicates to me that this is ready now. A while back I made a couple minor edits, which took care of all my remaining complaints. It looks good to me after a quick skim through the current version. The punctuation seems okay, although I didn't read all the way through again. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - My copyedit won't be finished until early next week, at the soonest. If the decision to promote is done in the interim, I certainly won't complain (and I won't hold back from finishing the job either) Oh, and by the way, awful I've not said it yet, but this is a dang good article. Well done. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the copy-edit. It has improved the article beyond my best expectations, considering I thought it may have been a little premature listing it here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although I have tweaked this article quite a bit. And as the initiator of {{Invincibles Advert}} I did promise to abstain from all these FACs, but since this seems stalled and under full declaration anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although there are some open issues from my just-finished copyedit and I have some lingering concerns over the quality of photos (fuzzy or badly cropped). --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was me, a few hours ago. Matt'll get there when he has a mo - it'll be easy to address, one way or the other. --Dweller (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; it's placed in the middle of a sentence so it looks awkward. Gary King (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2008 (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/Ian_Johnson_(cricketer)&oldid=1216955632"