Talk:Bobby Peel/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 02:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "...,and was highly regarded by critics." → and was highly regarded by cricket critics.

• I think it is fairly self-evident that they would be cricket critics, and I'm not too fond of the alliteration. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "..and was highly regarded by critics." → well-known

• It seems I mixed up the text. I meant well known should be "well-known". —Zia Khan 14:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well-known and highly regarded are not the same thing; he was highly regarded. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• OK, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yorkshire cricketer

• Link "drawn"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "At the time, the Yorkshire team was generally inconsistent." In which aspect? They were not playing frequently or else?

• Tried to clarify. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Test debut

• "...not usually composed exclusively of the best cricketers in England." → Needs inline citation.

• It is cited at the end of the next sentence; not every sentence needs a citation if they are covered by the next ref. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The previous English tour Australia..." → The previous English tour of Australia ...

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Critics considered..." again "Cricket critics considered..."

• See above. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Home Test matches

• "...match figures of 11 for 68." match-figures?

• I've never seen it hyphenated anywhere else. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "...158 runs in his second innings, his maiden first-class hundred." At that time?!

• You can only have one maiden hundred; your first will always be your first. It is still his maiden hundred 125 years later. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• At the end of the season, Hawke ended the careers of several players; the Yorkshire president told the committee that the "demon drink" was to blame.[44]" I think this sentence is unrelated to the para?

• Why? It is about the same season, and relates to the team's underachievement. And it links to Peate's and Peel's dismissals. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Australian tour of 1894–95

• Link to Melbourne Cricket Club

• Linked earlier on first mention. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "After having five teeth extracted,[60]..." why?

• No source says. Presumably decay. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• ...the fifth day's play, Australia had scored 113 for two,..." We know that Test matches were of 6 days at that time, but most of our reader don't know this, I guess.

• Actually, in Australia they were timeless and had no limit. Not sure it is worth specifying this, particularly as English Tests were 3-day games. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• You may link "pair"

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Link "duck" at the first instance

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "...and 168 runs at 18.67, placing him sixth in the batting averages.[78]" → ...and scored 168 runs at 18.67, placing him sixth in the batting averages.[78]

• The whole sentence reads "Peel ended the series with 27 wickets at 26.70, second in the averages behind Tom Richardson, and 168 runs at 18.67, placing him sixth in the batting averages." We don't need "scored" as it makes sense without. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "... to be eighth in the averages,..." → "to be" is redundant

• No, the sentence doesn't make sense without it. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Final seasons

• "Against Warwickshire, he scored 210 not out, the highest first-class score of his career,..." in an innings?

• Tweaked. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Later life

• The first para ends up with 1904 and the following para starts in 1898?

• Took out the 1904 part as I'm not sure how important it is. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wilfred Rhodes → Rhodes

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Technique and personality

• His main rival as a spinner and for a place in the England team was Johnny Briggs; Peel bowled faster, which made him harder to hit,[3] Archie MacLaren, who captained England towards the end of Peel's career and was a team-mate and captain of Briggs, described Peel as "the cleverest bowler of my time". → a very long sentence

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• "He batted in the middle order,[84] including when he played for England, when he most often batted at number six,[17] and often effective when other batsmen had failed.[3]" no need of "when he"

• Reorganised this a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Images

• All the images should have a proper ALT text.

• Unless I'm missing something, they all have alt text already. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

A well-written article! I'll put this one on hold, and will be back to this as the above concerns resolve. —Zia Khan 02:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that should be everything. Thanks for the review. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• You may link ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive in the references. —Zia Khan 14:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I see the point. Other sources aren't linked in the references, and I don't think it's common practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)

1. Well-written.

   a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (well referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):

3. Broad in its coverage.

   a (covers major aspects): b (well focused):

4. Neutral .

   Fair representation, no bias:

5. Stable.

   No edit wars nor disputed contents:

6. Illustrated appropriately by images.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Conclusion: Good work with the article. Keep it up! —Zia Khan 21:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: