Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jonathan Agnew/archive2

< Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Sarastro1

Comments by Sarastro1, moved from main FAC page to reduce clutter. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

  • It may be worth somewhere explaining the convention about giving bowling figures for anyone who doesn't know.
    • Linked in the lead..... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • Bowling average linked, but what about an explanation of 8–47 for the non-specialist? --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • Ah, have added an explanatory note, but it feels really clunky to me. I thought the purpose of wikilinks was to avoid having to do that. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "and, less commonly, "Spiro" – the latter "after U.S. Vice-President Spiro Agnew"": Why the quotation marks?
    • That's what it says in the book, so it's a direct quote. Believe me, there are very few reliable sources claiming Spiro to be his nickname, even though Cricinfo do etc...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "returning for a cameo in 1992": A little vague? Not a big deal but I would prefer "one appearance" or similar.
    • Briefly, rather than "a cameo" - it is, after all, the lead. Hopefully the main part of the article expands on it adequately. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "He was second and third leading wicket-taker": I think the class of cricket needs to be specified.
    • It already says in the previous sentence "county cricket", could repeat it, but perhaps that would be, well, repetitive. Do you have any suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • Sorry, not making myself clear. I meant first-class or List A. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • I've never seen any source specify that - it's a tautology. When unspecified, it always means first-class cricket. --Dweller (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
          • Fair enough among cricket circles, but what about to the casual reader, who may think it refers to any form of cricket, including club. But not a huge problem if you prefer it like this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Agnew himself has been described…": By who? And is this person's opinion significant enough to go in the lead?
  • "Driven by early enjoyment of the media coverage of cricket, Agnew developed a love for playing it": The sentence kind of trails off with "it". Maybe "playing the game"?
    • Yep, not keen on that ending (Dweller's choice, of course). I've rephrased, no doubt to be assassinated later....! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Another family connection to cricket was his first cousin, Mary Duggan, who was a women's Test player for England from 1948 to 1963": Although relevant and interesting, this feels tacked on where it is. Possibly move this, and maybe reference to his father's cricket, to the first paragraph?
    • I disagree. The father's cricket is natural here, where he's teaching his son the game. And as such, it flows into Duggan. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "but after "a couple of years" a professional arrived at the school": Why quotation marks?
    • A direct quote from his book, so it needs quote marks. (A couple is vague, but since it's a quote, so be it...) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I think a paraphrase would be better as this does not really deserve quotes. However, if you want quotes, an in-text citation is needed per WP:INTEXT and MoS on quotations. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • Duplicated reference so it's straight after the quote. Attributed quote to Agnew. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "a "devastating" performance of pace bowling": I imagine that the mini-quote comes from Wisden but the effect of having one word in quotation marks is a little tabloid-y.
    • It "sort of" is, but it's a quote that is hard to bend into this prose, it was a "devastating" performance, not sure, other than removing it, what we can do...? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • Chipping in here, we need to explain why it had an impact (it wasn't an everyday performance) and to do so, we need to avoid POV and for an FA, peacock terms too. Quotes work very well in those circumstances. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • If we are giving this, it is an opinion and the opinion should be attributed with in-text citation per WP:INTEXT and MoS on quotations. But, as above, I'm not sure this deserves quotes: maybe "which he regarded as devastating." It needs attributing one way or another, though. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • Ref moved four words or so to the left so it's next to the quote, minor reword (it wasn't Agnew who thought it was "devastating", that's from the reference, attributed to Norman Preston). The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Lloyd "was halfway through a forward defensive push when his off stump was despatched halfway towards the Leicestershire wicket-keeper."[15]": I think we need in-text attribution here.
  • "The award afforded him the opportunity to spend a winter in Australia developing his skills, alongside fellow winners Mike Gatting, Wayne Larkins and Chris Tavaré, and to be coached by Frank Tyson.[26] All four went on to play Test cricket." The four could possibly include Tyson with this phrasing. What about "The award afforded him the opportunity to spend a winter in Australia to develop his skills and be coached by Frank Tyson, alongside fellow winners Mike Gatting, Wayne Larkins and Chris Tavaré, all of whom went on to play Test cricket." However, I can find no mention of Tyson in the ref given so I'm not sure if all of them were coached by Tyson.
    • I don't think they were. At least, none of the sources clearly says so. As Tyson wasn't much of a batsman, it makes sense that he didn't coach the other three, who were all batsmen. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • OK; I'm not convinced about the phrasing but not a huge issue. However, the given ref still doesn't mention Tyson, and this should be sorted. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • Good spot. Sorted - and Tyson is briefly described, for context. --Dweller (talk) 10:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Agnew's 1979 season was disrupted by injury": How, and how much?
    • I'm not sure that much detail is needed - the season was forgettable. Too much detail on those early damp squib seasons would definitely be undue, for a player who then went on to play internationals, followed by an even more notable media career. --Dweller (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Success with Leicestershire was noticed by the England selectors and Agnew was chosen for the fifth Test of England's home series that summer, against West Indies": What success? As it reads at the moment, it appears he owed his selection to 8-47 against Cambridge. Not even in the 1980s, surely!!!
    • Quite right. I'll address that. --Dweller (talk) 22:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "and achieved overall figures of seven wickets at an average of 29." A little confusing as it appears this includes all matches including one dayers. Maybe say "…played in just one first-class match on tour, in which he took seven wickets at an average of 29. [Or seven for 205]"
  • "with Norman Cowans and Chris Cowdrey playing all five Tests, Neil Foster and Richard Ellison sharing the third spot alongside the spinners": with noun-verbing not the best construction.
    • Split, reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • Second one done, first one not.--Sarastro1 (talk) 18:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • While not ideal, it does prevent "and... and... and..." perhaps you can suggest a better alternative? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
          • Not a huge issue really, in the grand scheme of things, but maybe "Over the winter, the side had been settled; Norman Cowans and Chris Cowdrey played all five Tests, while Neil Foster and Richard Ellison shared the third spot alongside the spinners, playing two and three Tests respectively." The construction has not really changed in terms of "ands" here. But it's up to you. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Of the bowlers who had played the last Test in India, only Cowans had survived the cull and it set the tone for the series.": What had set the tone? "It" is vague here.
    • The immediate subject before the "it" is the "cull". I think it's clear. --Dweller (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • I don't quite follow how a cull can set the tone for a series. What tone? And it kind of implies that players were culled throughout the series. I would also suggest that "it" could refer to Cowans' survival set the tone for the series. Sorry to be picky on this one. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • There was much chopping and changing (culling) of personnel throughout, something the text makes clear and elaborates on. I'm not sure what's not clear, perhaps it's the "set the tone" comment. Compare this analogy: "We argued on our first date and this set the tone for our relationship". --Dweller (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • 1986 passes without comment. While I don't expect lots about every season, it is a little jarring as it is the first time a season has not been referred to, even in the sense of "between X and Y, Agnew did blah". (Does this make sense? I seem to be waffling.)
    • We don't mention seasons 1981, 1982 or 1983 either. I think it's reasonable use of summary style. --Dweller (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I think more is needed on his England omission. For example, the CoY piece gives this: "Asked about Agnew's omission, the chairman of selectors, P. B. H. May, expressed concern about his fitness - rather a baffling statement to make about someone who bowled more overs than any other fast bowler in the Championship."; also there are a few things on cricinfo that mention it was a scandal he was never selected. As it stands, the article has only one person's view rather than showing it was a widespread opinion.
    • I like that. Going to add to the career summary section. --Dweller (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Test Match Special: If you are using TMS as the abbreviation, maybe give this in brackets after the first mention of Test Match Special.
  • "there would be a phone-in show on 5 live debating…": Did this not pre-date 5 live?
  • "He is a shareholder in TestMatchExtra.com Ltd": Presumably he owns a few shares, not just one or two? Any indication of how large a shareholder he is?
  • "The popular response from English fans was "They've banned Aggers."": This strikes me as a slightly sarcastic throw-away line in the Telegraph and I'm not sure it warrants mention, but feel free to disagree.
    • I tend to agree. I'll scrub it. --Dweller (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm still not sure about the dirt-in-pocket part. I think it classes as a "controversy" in itself, rather than a throw-away observation to follow Vaughan getting shirty. As such, I would have it at the start of this section. But you may disagree.
    • I disagree. Most of the cricket press expressed strong opinions over the dirt in pocket affair. The controversy there was Atherton's, not Agnew's. The Vaughan incident was specifically one Agnew was at the centre of, rather than commenting on. --Dweller (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "in British English, 'getting one's leg over' is a euphemism…": Why single quotation marks? Ditto for "rubber" later on.
  • "A two-mile traffic jam at the entrance to the Dartford Tunnel was even blamed on the episode, as drivers reportedly were unable to pay the toll due to their excessive laughter.": I never like "reportedly"; how reliable is this source? I think I would use "according to…" but the story strikes me as unlikely, to be honest.
    • There's no reason to doubt the source. The story is rather specific for a lie or an embellishment. --Dweller (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "During Agnew's playing career, his role in various dressing-room incidents…": A little harsh; the source mentions him in one incident, and the others refer to DeFreitas.
    • Great spot - on review of the source, I've misread DeFreitas for Agnew, in terms of who was involved in lots of problems behind the scenes. Very happy to put it right. --Dweller (talk) 22:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • As before, some opinions/reviews on his abilities as a broadcaster, beyond the awards, would help, but fine if they don't exist. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • You're asking us to remove one of the few comments on this in RS from the lead? --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
      • Not really. I'm not sure that comment is the best one for the lead, and I think that particular comment should be more specifically attributed. However, such a comment would fit well into this section, I don't see why it couldn't be used in the main body as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
        • See above - got a resolution for this. --Dweller (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Sarastro. Looking forward to earning your support. I'll get stuck in to the ones TRM hasn't done yet. --Dweller (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Jonathan_Agnew/archive2&oldid=473849974"