Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Third Test, 1948 Ashes series/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 Karanacs 18:46, 12 January 2010 [1].

---

Third Test, 1948 Ashes series

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Featured article candidates/Third Test, 1948 Ashes series/archive1

This is one of the articles from the set Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates/The Invincibles/archive1. This match was most infamous for the controversial omission of the leading England batsman Len Hutton. Also, despite one day's play being washed out and rain being prevalent, it broke a record for the most spectators at a Test match in England, showing how popular the 1948 Australians were YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comments - 2c is good, handful of fixits here Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on refs' In notes but not refs: Harte and Whimpress, Perry (2002) • Ling.Nut 13:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

done the oversights mentioned by Lingnut and fifelfoo YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – This sentence is currently at the end of Background: "Yardley won the toss and elected to bat." I think this should be in the day one summary, as it is in the articles on the Fourth and Fifth Tests. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 13:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Now for an extended review from me, not just a one-off comment. Most of it looks good, as I would expect. I only found a handful or so of issues that jumped out at me while reading the article:

• Day One: "who compared him to Harold Larwood, a 1930s paceman targeted batsmen with Bodyline." Missing "who" in this sentence.
• Day Two: "with on foot on the edge of the cut strip and he was unable to evade the ball." Second word is a typo.
• Day Three: "and Emmett edged it to wicket-keeper Tallon, who took it in his right hand with taking a dive." Is "with taking a dive" a cricket phrase? If not, it doesn't sound that grammatical. Should it be "while taking a dive"? (can you tell I'm unfamiliar with cricket?)
• "There position was aided by the Australian fielders". "There" → "Their".
• "and was again dropped by Hassett. Hassett." Try to adjust so that repetition of the name isn't there.
• Aftermath: "in order to fulfil Bradman's aim of going through the tour undefeated." Is "fulfil" a typo? (not sure if it's some Australian varient of fulfill) Giants2008 (27 and counting) 04:22, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Done all except the last. Wiktionary says one l is correct for BrE YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 13:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Support – Another excellent cricket article from YM, which is of similar quality to the articles on 1948 Ashes matches that are already featured. Prose looks fine after the fixes above, and the sourcing is top-notch, as one would expect from YM. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I had to run both dash and date scripts on the article. Shouldn't have to be done by a reviewer. Australian date formats required.

thanks for the date thing. I usually just prefer hardcode as being easier to work with because some text editors don't tell the diff between dashes n/m and hyphen and kill it off when I put it in there.... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• The names of anglophone countries (there are seven, I guess) are not linked unless there's a really good reason to do so. Many readers won't get it, that the opening links are to cricket teams. You have to be in the know to realise that they're called, loosely, by their country name. I don't suppose that they could be piped to "the Australia and England national cricket teams"? Generally skilfully linked.

I avoided using national as ENG represents two nations and tweaked it around YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• "Test(s)" when generic (not part of a title) should be "test(s)".

Well, per WP:CRIC Tests have been capped everywhere adn in all prior FAs, including some you already reviewed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. It's Test cricket. I would say it's an important cap, as test cricket sounds like it's a warm-up or a practice match, an unfortunate ambiguity. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• "so Australia thus"—two causal words? "and thus Australia".

done thanks YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• after ... after, plus another after a few seconds later. There's a lot of need for chronological sequence items, so have you two or three that can be rotated, or standard methods for rewording some instances? "at ... at". Watch those reps throughout. Where is my script for flagging close reps? Who will write it?

Mixed it up YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• "retained The Ashes"—you sure it normally has a T mid-sentence? Looks odd. Tony (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally yes, but the article is at "The Ashes" so... YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 14:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur. The best cricket RS do usually capitalise the t. I suppose it's a reflection of the superstitious awe in which they are held by English and Australian cricket fans; and a lot of those elsewhere. --Dweller (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Images all free and appropriately labeled, a tad dull, maybe add File:Ashes_Urn.jpg to the opening paragraph, but nothing that would hinder FA candidacy Fasach Nua (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Support, comprehensive and complies with MOS.--Grahame (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Support -- prose, detail, sourcing, and style all look good. A few comments but nothing serious enough to affect support:

• Prefer to see an image in the lead para.
• Pedantry, but set a new record is redundant. If you set a record, it's new by its nature. I know everyone uses "new record" but that doesn't make it correct.
• Likewise, it'd be nice to fight common but incorrect usage of "England" and "Australia" (as in the cricket teams) taking "their" as the possessive instead of "its" - you could fix and keep everyone happy by changing "England" and "Australia" to "the English" and "the Australians". I realise of course that this usage is probably in all similar articles and therefore a lost cause but still... ;-)

Anyway, well played, suh! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.