Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Jack Crawford (cricketer)/archive1

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 via FACBot (talk) 10:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Jack Crawford (cricketer) edit

Nominator(s): Jhall1 and Sarastro1 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a rather arrogant but massively talented cricketer who had a dispute with the authorities and dropped out of the England team. Not KP, but Jack Crawford who played in the first two decades of the 20th century. A somewhat forgotten story but an interesting one. This article has been undergoing work for a long time now. Jhall1 and I have been picking at it for the best part of 3 years. It first reached GA in 2011 but the availability of some more information prompted some expansion, and it has had a talk-page review from some very talented editors. Any further comments are more than welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:09, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review (if I don't mention it, it's fine)
File:Portrait of Richard Webster, 1st Viscount Alverstone.jpg - Needs year of publication, perhaps a proper cite book template. Also, almost certainly taken in the UK. Any information on provenance?

I didn't actually put this one in. I've switched back to one for which I know a little more. How's that one? Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's definitely PD, at least in the US. I wouldn't have uploaded the full resolution if I had doubts. I'll update the information page if you're not sure about the book. We can go with "Unknown" for the creator. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That new image is okay copyright wise, but the old one was clearer. Do you want me to clean up the source information on that one, or...? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, forgot this. I'd be grateful if you could do that! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how's this look? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, thanks! Switched back to that now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else is okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. Just that one image nit pick to deal with, and that's essentially done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cliftonian Great article for which I constituted part of the recent informal peer review. Just had another look through and just a few nitpicks stick out, none of which affect my support.

"When the dispute arose, he sent a telegram" Who? Crawford or Trumper? (I guess the former but just to be sure)
Did the rumours about becoming a farmer say he was going to become a rancher in Australia or go back to England to do it? (or elsewhere?)

Unknown, unfortunately. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When we say both marriages seem to have been childless it may be good to qualify this by saying according to whom they seem to be so (Hart?)

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We refer in the last section to an "eight-year absence" from English cricket, but wasn't he actually absent for ten years?

Took out "eight-year". Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well done again Sarastro and Jhall1. Very enjoyable, engaging piece on a man I had never heard of. — Cliftonian (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for all your help. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – from another participant in the recent ad hoc review. It was clearly a fine article then and has been further refined as a result of reviewers' comments. Meets all FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 18:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and kind words. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:

Page range formats should be standardised (e.g. compare ref 6 with ref 35 and others)
ISBNs: The 1988 Benny Green book has ISBN 978-0-71262-080-2. For the Wynne-Thomas book it's 978-0-60055-782-1

Otherwise, all sources look appropriate and reliable, and are properly and consistently formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got these, I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to minor source format fixes. I was one of the "talented" editors who gave this a recent talkpage review, having first reviewed it three years ago at an earlier stage in its development. The article is now in good shape and I'm happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and your earlier help. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As one of the talk page reviewers I'm not sure "talented" is the right word for me, but I see no further problems with the article worth commenting on; in fact, there were few to begin with. Nice to see this editor back producing quality articles for FAC to look at. I trust that the needed source tweaks will be made and will not let them stop me from supporting the article, which is a fine piece of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and your earlier review. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just how powerful was Lord Alverstone?:

One thing has been niggling at me for a couple of days. At one point we say about Lord Alverstone: "Starting in 1909, he left out several professionals." As not only the president of the club but also the Lord Chief Justice, he was obviously very influential, but did he have quite the dictatorial powers that this unqualified statement would imply? I know it's properly cited and comes from one of the sources. But later on, we say: "Alverstone wrote to Crawford that the Surrey committee fully supported Leveson Gower's decision to omit Rushby and Lees." OK, this specific case doesn't necessarily disprove the earlier statement, but it does suggest that Alverstone couldn't run the club as a one-man band and had to take some notice of the committee and club captain (and since Leveson Gower was an England selector he will have had a fair amount of clout himself), and possibly of the secretary too. JH (talk page) 17:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've toned this down a touch to make it less clear who was pulling the strings, as I think you are probably right. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article. it is well-referenced and it meets the FA criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Well I guess there's some kind of consensus apparent here but pls just check duplinks before I close... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Got these I think, apart from one linked to a glossary. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 26 October 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.