From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
|
|
[edit] GA Review
Very good article on a neglected subject. The article is basically at GA standard now but I have some suggestions I would like you to consider before promoting.
- "former first-class cricketer" - As Marsh is dead, is former redundant?
-
- Indigenous descent - would "Australian aboriginal descent" be clearer to non-Australians?
-
"regarded as one of the outstanding talents of his era" - I know it is the lead but is this a little too peacocky On reflection, is discussed adequately in the article. Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)- "he was no-balled for throwing" - a link to throwing (cricket) perhaps
-
-
- "an in a later season" - not sure if this should be "and in a later season" or "an a later season"
-
-
- "running stiff" - an explanation of running stiff - i.e. not trying to win and why it was an issue should be added
-
- I don't actually know anything about running scandals. If oyu do could you help?
-
- I know that running stiff means not trying to win, i.e. tanking. In professional running it is a perennial problem as it is usually done as part of betting plunges or to push out the odds for a later race. My uncle gave a good piece of advice once, "Never bet on anything with two legs"! I would suggest a link to Match fixing would do the job. Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
- Is the linked Sydney Cricket Club the same club that Marsh played for? The existing Sydney Cricket Club is a rebadged Balmain CC
-
- Unlinked. It is something else.
- Is a link to Test cricket appropriate at the first use of "Test player"
-
- "Trumper was widely regarded as the finest batsman of his age" - by whom?
-
- Well, erm everyone (in this case, "heaps" is enough since I said "widely", I have now added two more refs, but each of the refs quote multiple pundits...I guess to list 10 praises of Trumper would swamp the article)
-
- Without doubt he was. The referencing is fine now and probably was sufficient before but it never hurts to attribute these statements where possible. Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- "the highest individual score compiled at Adelaide Oval in a Shield match" - "Shield needs explanation or naming and listing in full i.e. Sheffield Shield
-
- "the public interest in it had started to wan" - Is "wan" the word you are looking for, or is it "wane"
-
- "Two notable events in the first innings occurred in the innings. At one point Marsh lost his cool and deliberately threw three consecutive balls. Another was that his captain Syd Gregory kept Marsh bowling from the end adjudicated by Crockett, who was suspected of being biased towards his own state." - This reads a little choppily to me.
-
-
- In the paragraph starting "Certain hypotheses were presented for Crockett's actions", who are the people making the conspiracy claims?
-
- The author didn't really attribute them. He just noted their existence.
- "As a result, Gregory's unwillingness to switch Marsh to the opposite end raised eyebrows" - raised whose eyebrows? perhaps this can be reworded.
-
- "It was speculated that since Crockett was a lifelong employee" - Who did the speculating?
-
- The author didn't really attribute them. He just noted their existence.
- "Plum Warner's MCC team" - MCC should at least be linked, if not spelled out or perhaps the abbreviation shown at the earlier mention of Marylebone Cricket Club. There is the potential for confusion between Marylebone CC and Melbourne CC; both are mentioned earlier in the article.
-
- "Barnes was the only Test bowler with over 120 Test wickets to have a bowling average under 20; he took 189 wickets at an average of just 16.43" I know the sentence provides some context to the comparison made earlier but it seem incongruous here. The link provided earlier should be sufficient.
-
- Fixed. Moved back into the correct position immiedately after the first Bardsley comment.
-
- Much better location, I will add a little tweak to the sentence, revert if you feel it unnecessary. Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Let me know when you have done those that you feel are relevant and I will take another look. The GA is on hold for now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- I will make the last few changes on your behalf and then promote. There also seems to be a small problem with the formatting of the refs that I will fix. Well done again. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 28, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: pass
- 2. Factually accurate?: pass
- 3. Broad in coverage?: pass
- 4. Neutral point of view?: pass
- 5. Article stability? pass
- 6. Images?: pass
This is a comprehensive, well written article. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Mattinbgn\talk 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
