Talk:Joe Darling

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Joe Darling has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 11, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
cricket ball
Cricket Portal
Click here for information about how the WikiProject assesses notability
Joe Darling is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project page for more details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Flag
Portal
 Joe Darling is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian sports.
Assessment comments

[edit] Some minor comments (not a GA review)

  • The 2nd EL (the ABC one) could/should be used as a reference. It's pretty useful.
  • Now done, some good stuff as you say.
  • His nickname could be mentioned in the lead.
  • Done.
  • Transfer free images to Commons!
  • Of course! I uploaded new images to the commons but didn't think to check the existing images,

Good luck with the FT :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a long road ahead! -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I will be reviewing this article. I have made it through the first half of the article so far, but I might not be able to finish the review until later today. To speed up the process, I like to post my concerns as I go so that the editor doesn't have to wait until the review is complete to start working on the article. With that said, my concerns so far are as follows:

  1. In the first paragraph of the "Early life and career" section, what are an XV and an XI?Y Done - Linked XI have not done XV
  2. Near the beginning of the third paragraph in the "Consolidation" subsection, could 178 be written into the text instead of put in parentheses?Y Done
  3. In the final sentence of the "Consolidation" subsection, part of the sentence is missing.Y Done
  4. In the first paragraph of the "Captaincy" subsection, I am confused about the following sentence: "Aside from Hill, he was seen by Wisden as the best batsman..." Is this sentence about Darling, or does this refer to Jones (the latter of which seems to be the antecedent)?Y Done
  5. Also in that paragraph, who or what is Wisden? This should be explained in the text.Y Done
  6. In the third paragraph of the "Captaincy" subsection, it "toss" cricket jargon (that should be linked or explained) or does it refer to a coin toss?Y Done

That's all so far. I will do what I can to complete the review today. GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

From the next section:
  1. In the second paragraph of "Return to cricket", I don't know what "5/51" means. I have mentioned this more below, but if you could leave this in and explain what it means ("5/51, or ________, ..."), that would eliminate the concerns below.Y Done
  2. Again, later in that paragraph, what is "5/48"?Y Done
  3. In the third paragraph of "Final tour and retirement", it again says "6/219".Y Done
  4. At the end of "Final tour and retirement", a reference is needed for "Dead Heads" since it is a quotation.Y Done
Again, I've got to go out for a while, but I'll get back to this review soon. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


I have now completed the review. The article is very close to passing.
Is it reasonably well written?

A. Prose quality: Not yet
Please see my remaining comments above.
B. MoS compliance: Pass

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

A. References to sources: Pass
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Pass
C. No original research: Pass

Is it broad in its coverage?

A. Major aspects: Pass
B. Focused: Weak pass

Is it neutral?

Fair representation without bias: Pass

Is it stable?

No edit wars, etc: Pass

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: Pass
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Pass

Overall:

Pass or Fail: On hold


I would like to see the list of my four concerns above addressed. Aside from that, I think this is ready to be passed as a Good Article. I did feel, however, that there were times when the article could be focused better. In the "Captaincy" section, for example, I thought some of the information about his teammates' performances were unnecessary, but I decided to let those slide because Darling was the captain and their performances did affect him to an extent. If you are planning to nominate this as a Featured Article, I think you should look at trimming the references to his teammates.

I have placed this article on hold until my concerns are addressed. The hold lasts for a maximum of seven days, but I imagine this could be dealt with in five minutes when you have a chance. I have placed the article on my watchlist, so please check off the items as you complete them and I will check back. If you have any concerns about this review, please leave a message here or on my talk page. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Have responded to GaryColemanFan at his talk page in relation to his request on points 1-3 above. To a non cricket enthusiast this mathematical nomenclature is a bit hard to understand. As I am not a main contributor to the article I will leave it other editors or GCF to make the appropriate adjustment to explain this in the prose.--VS talk 23:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have passed the article. If it is possible to make the 5/51, 5/48 and 6/219 more clear, I would appreciate it if this could be done. Good work to all those who contributed to the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)