Wikipedia:Peer review/Bart King1/archive1

Bart King edit

Bart King was the greatest cricketer to come out of the United States. I'm trying to get the article up to FA status. I know that I'll need to work on the lead a lot, but what else might be added to improve on this article? Any and all input is most welcome.--Eva ^bd 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good. I had no idea who Bart was and I enjoyed reading about cricket and Philadelphia. I only have one comment. The last sentance of 2.2 "After such a performance, it would seem ... odd??? ... that after the match, at a banquet, he fell asleep during a speech by the Lord Chief Justice."[16] I would like to know if Bart was asked about it and what he said Dharp66 20:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Dharp66[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I will check my sources to see if there is any more information on this odd occurence.--Eva ^bd 21:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd personally be a little wary of what at points sounds a biased voice - "He was not only a skilled athlete, but was also an amiable individual"; "This proved especially helpful as he mercilessly dismissed batsmen while being able to remain friends with them off of the cricket ground"; "Though King outlived most of the men that remembered him, his place in cricket history, very near the summit is assured" - I could go on. The article isn't what I'd call neutral, and for it to progress beyond where it's at, that's its greatest hurdle. In terms of content, it's incredibly sufficient. There is another issue, should you ever shoot for GA or FA: in your referencing, you at points cite books without mentioning the relevant page, which the cats at WP:FAC will be very tough on. Also, when you cite a website, it's a good idea to use the citeweb template. More information on citation is available at WP:CITE, and for good examples of the principles in practice I'd point you towards Simon Byrne, even more relevant because it is about a sportsman. Good luck with the article. Seegoon 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I'll try and find the pages on the book. The main problem is that I was using scans of the books dropped into word documents. I'll talk to the scanners and see if they can give me the pages. As for the neutrality, there is generally very little written about American cricket. What is an editor to do if all of the sources are complimentary to the subject? I'm just using the information that is given in the sources available. Any thoughts on that?--Eva ^bd 23:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but you have to bear in mind that you're an editor here, and it's not your job to simply regurgitate the sentiments of authors. It's a tough call, but WP:NPOV asks that an article is written without bias, and even though I'm not sure about how to improve upon where you are right now, I'd advise you ask experienced biography reviewers like User:Yannismarou or User:Trebor Rowntree for help. Props to you for trying to write about American cricket though, you've bitten off a lot. Seegoon 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment. After thinking those over as I fell asleep last night, I came to the same conclusion as you. It is the editor's job to get the article down to the facts. I'll get to work straight away, and I've also contacted the two folks you recommended.--Eva ^bd 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question of NPOV has now been posed on the articles talk page. I'll try to implement those suggestions over the next couple of days unless someone else gets to it first. If anyone has more comments about the POV, it may be a good idea to check there first.--Eva ^bd 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of formatting using the information at WP:Cite. I'm not that good at it, so I mostly just plugged the information into the generators and let them do the work. I'm still waiting on the page numbers in the book. If anyone has the books, can they tell me what page range the King article covers? If they can post or e-mail the first line of each page in that section, I can fix the citations. As I mentioned, I have a scan of the books that someone dropped into a word document and e-mailed me.--Eva ^bd 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trebor edit

Dunno about being an experience biography editor, but I'll share my thoughts:

I wouldn't include Born in 1873 in the lead; his date of birth is already right after his name.
Maybe wikilink Philadelphian.
in the period from the end... - "in the period" is probably redundant, it's fairly obviously a period of time being described.
Inconsistent use of "nineteenth" and "19th" to describe centuries - WP:DATE doesn't say which should be used, but I'd just keep it the same throughout the article.
Though this period of cricket in the United States was dominated by wealthy gentlemen players, King was an amateur that was able to play based solely on his skill - a bit weak in a couple of ways. I'd use "although" instead of "though" as I think it sounds better. The sentence as a whole is a bit hard to follow. Were these "wealthy gentlemen players" amateurs also? How was King different? What does it mean to say he was able to play "based solely on his skill"? Needs a rephrase.
He was not only a skilled athlete - we already know he was from the previous sentence, so no need to repeat it in the lead.
King's place on lists of powerful cricketers is assured by his statistics - what does "powerful" cricketers mean? In fact, given the second paragraph goes on to discuss his statistics, this sentence could be cut altogether.
The lead as a whole is a bit flowery and admiring; it's obviously written by a fan. Perhaps try phrasing it more objectively. He was obviously very talented, but the lead goes over-the-top in my opinion.
This was the family business but his father later allowed him to enter the insurance industry as a career. - there's not an obvious contradiction here.
It has been suggested, however, that... - who has suggested it? It could do with a more specific reference; at the moment it sounds very vague.
Bart King was regarded by many of his contemporaries as a gentleman - I'm not sure gentleman is a good word to use. In his day, it might have meant something more, but these days I think it sounds a bit odd. Rather than "gentleman", perhaps use the characteristics associated with being a gentleman.
Were there any criticisms of him as a person to balance the second paragraph; once again, it's making him look a bit too brilliant (if you know what I mean).
starting out as a batsmen - "batsman"?
extraordinary figure of... - point-of-view, let the figure speak for itself.
long tour and a long trip - the second "long" is redundant.
and one or two other sides - do we know if it was one or two?
did not fair well - should be "fare".
most masterful - again, some PoV. Perhaps "most successful".
King could do so at will with an old or new ball - can anyone get the ball to swing at will? I'm not an avid cricket-follower, but I thought even today's bowlers can struggle in some conditions.
Add accessdates to the references.
Put external links at the bottom (with title of external links).

This is good, most of the information is there and it's well-referenced. It could do with a fairly thorough copyedit (for redundancies in particular) and careful vetting for anything that is POV. Good work. Trebor 17:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Trebor. I think I've tackled all the suggestions you've made save the citations. I'll add the access dates tonight if I can. Thanks for the help.--Eva ^bd 19:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]