Talk:D'Oliveira affair

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:D'Oliveira affair/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman 03:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look through this, but it'll take me a while, I hope you're not in a rush! Harrias ^talk 14:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "The MCC selectors faced considerable criticism in Britain after they named a team without D'Oliveira; when they then included D'Oliveira after all following an injured player's withdrawal..." I think "after all" is unnecessary in this sentence. If nothing else, it strikes me as a more casual manner than the lead is taking otherwise. Harrias ^talk 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• OK, removed and reworded slightly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Background

• "Overall attitudes in England towards South African cricket began to change in the 1960s." This sentence looks a bit odd at the end of its paragraph. It seems like a summary of the following paragraph?

• Moved to following paragraph. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• "The England team was playing in New Zealand at the time..." I think it would be worth clarifying that you've switched back to talking about cricket here.

• Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• "After a poor start, D'Oliveira prospered for Middleton, and established a wider reputation by playing televised matches for a team called the "Cavaliers", and taking part in overseas tours with a selection of leading cricketers." Not a lot right with this sentence I'm afraid: repetition of "and" needs removing, and the tense changes halfway through (prospered, established, taking part).

• Fixed I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, reworded quite a lot now. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Build-up

• "However, his opportunities to excel were few in the West Indies, and circumstances were against him in several matches, and he had a statistically poor tour." Similar repetition of "and".

• Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the use of the phrase "hard living" as applied to Dolly in the West Indies; it is either an exaggeration (even with all those questions and pressure is the life of an international touring cricketer that hard) or colloquial (as in "work hard, play hard").

• Reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Redlink P. M. K. Le Roux?

• I've no idea how notable he is, to be honest, so I'd be reluctant. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Vorster never intended to allow D'Oliveira to play with the MCC team..." This is a very strong statement, without any proof presented in the article. Are we certain of this, or is it just Oborne's assertion?

• Pretty certain; the whole thing was built up just to prevent him, and the subsequent actions are basically the proof. It's not just Oborne, it's mainly based on an academic study of the SA government archives. He quotes quite heavily from the letters and sources, including ones from and to Vorster, and takes pages and pages to do so. The book by Fraser-Sampson replicates much of the material but states it basically as an undisputed fact. I think this is the most recent source on the whole affair. Neither book has ever been rebutted and I don't think it's much in doubt. I'm not sure there is much we can add which would concisely provide the proof. I'm open to suggestions. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, particular in this "Build-up" section the article seems very sensationalistic. I don't know if this is because the content truly is sensational, or whether it is reflecting a sensational spin on the content given in Oborne's source. Given this, I'm a little wary about how reliant the article is upon Oborne. Is the viewpoint offered by Oborne reflected throughout other reliable sources (that aren't based upon Oborne)? Harrias ^talk 19:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Oborne's work is backed up by Fraser-Sampson, and these are the two most recent books on the subject. Both lean heavily on the study by Bruce Murray, to which I don't have access but I don't think there is much that isn't used in one place or another. I'll have another look and see if anything can be toned down a bit, or evidenced a bit more. Anything in particular that comes across as too much? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There are other sources which back up much of this, for example here or here. I think most follow Oborne, and the facts don't seem to be in dispute. I still need to check through the article though to make sure the tone is right. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I've gone through and toned it down in any places where i thought it perhaps overdid it. Any other areas where we get too sensational? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll have another look through the article on Friday. Harrias ^talk 22:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi both, note that I have added a fair use image at the top of the article showing D'Oliveira during his 158-run innings against Australia—I think this is justifiable as this event is important to the article, and also because it is important on a basic level to visually identify D'Oliveira, the central character in the article. I have also altered the lead slightly. I hope this is all okay. Have a great weekend both of you, —Cliftonian (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Per request, I'm going to take over the review. Due to the size of the article and a lack of time on my end, however, this will probably take a week or two to fully complete. I don't like reviewing an article in spurts but that's how I'm gonna have to do it. Wizardman 03:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thanks for taking this on. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead reads well, rest will be done in sections. Wizardman 03:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Background

Have read through here so far, didn't find any issues. Wizardman 02:42, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Build Up

• "Others worried that his selection would be seen as validating the apartheid system," how? Did they think he wasn't going to do well, or should it have said invalidating instead? I ask since it sounds like he would have fit in talent-wise in the paragraph so I might be missing something.

• My mistake; I've simplified too much for it to make much sense! Reworded now. Sarastro1 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

• "On his return to England, Cobham kept this information from the full MCC committee, conscious this would force them to cancel the tour." I don't know is conscious is the right word to use here, feels odd to me (it doesn't feel odd in the other uses in the article though, so maybe it's just that it's late here that I find it off-putting)

• I agree there's something not quite right, so I've reworded. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• "D'Oliveira was aware that accepting the offer would cause many to see him as a sell-out, but nevertheless considered it over the following weeks." How so? Sorry if this was noted earlier in the article but I don't believe it was. Would he be a sell-out due to the money, or am i missing something?

• Tried to reword, but I think some of this needs to be implied. If he accepted the offer, everyone would know that he had been bought off to make the whole problem go away. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• "Williams also concludes that the offer was an effective bribe to stop D'Oliveira playing" Should it say "..to stop D'Oliveira from playing."?

• Not sure. Reworded a bit. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Height/Aftermath

No issues.

Misc

• Everything else (images, refs), check out, but I do have one question of curiosity. For the Fraser-Sampson refs, what does "Location x" mean? It comes up in the closest library to me as an E-Book so maybe that has something to do with it? Wizardman 03:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• It is an ebook, and there are not page numbers. The best I could find was a location number on the ebook reader (i.e. if you enter that number, it will take you to the appropriate section); this and the chapter title is the best I can do. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Everything now looks good, and as a result I will pass this as a GA. For that matter, I'm willing to offer my support at FAC should I see this pop up there, since I found it to be a very impressive read. Wizardman 03:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Much obliged! Sarastro1 (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Eponymous

... include the eponymous Basil D'Oliveira...

This is backwards. The D'Oliveira affair is eponymous because it is named for the cricket player, not the other way round. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup you're right, I took those words out.--ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on D'Oliveira affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130607222859/http://www.lords.org/history/mcc-heritage/mcc-history/ to http://www.lords.org/history/mcc-heritage/mcc-history/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131206215115/http://heritage.thetimes.co.za/memorials/WC/BasilDOliveira/Article.aspx?id=570449 to http://heritage.thetimes.co.za/memorials/WC/BasilDOliveira/Article.aspx?id=570449

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Far

Similar problems to other Rhodesia FAs by the same user. Two of the strongest and most recent sources, are barely cited strongly suggesting that the article fails comprehensive and well-researched criteria. buidhe 23:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Buidhe, I noticed that some of Cliftonian's other FAs had been at FAR and I almost left a message about this one. The bulk of the research for this was done by me, and Cliftonian mainly copy-edited. If there are any concerns over that editor's use of sources in "Rhodesian" articles (and I am not passing judgement either way), I don't think they would apply here. The sources are almost exclusively "cricket-based" ones, and I can guarantee that they are currently up-to-date. I'm not sure I totally agree with their conclusions, but they are certainly high quality. I'm not entirely clear how you've decided that the two sources you've selected are the "strongest and most recent". A more up-to-date article by Murray is cited already, and his earlier work forms the basis of the arguments used in other sources; his main focus is how the South African government reacted to the possibility of D'Oliveira being selected, and the actions they took against him. I cannot access the chapter by Steen (who is a cricket writer), but from what I can preview it appears to be an overview of the subject. He may have his own interpretations of what happened, but this has not impacted on understanding of the topic. Additionally, two of the books (Quelch and Fraser-Sampson) used here were written after Steen's article. The book by Oborne was written in 2004 – after the 2001 article by Murray – and while not flawless, is generally viewed as the definitive account of the D'Oliveira affair. The only more recent work which could perhaps be used to update this is England: The Biography by Simon Wilde, which references the Affair in overview, and makes some good points about it; mainly, that D'Oliveira probably deserved to be dropped from a strictly cricketing viewpoint, and that Oborne skirts over his conduct during the West Indies tour in 1967-68. I am happy to address any further concerns, but would not consider FAR necessary. Sarastro (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Having said that, if anyone has access to the Steen article and can provide a copy, I'm more than happy to see if there's anything that could be added, even if it is just "Rob Steen believed X, Y and Z". Sarastro (talk) 10:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Sarastro1 You might have email, if your address is still the same, with the Steen/Wagg source attached for your consideration. (I haven't read it.) But I broadly concur that the sources used here are high quality cricketing sources that cover all the major points and opinions on the topic. Harrias ^talk 10:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Harrias my email is the same, but messages don't always come through for some reason! Sarastro (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

If you don't get it, let me know and I can try again. Harrias ^talk 10:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Sarastro (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've had a quick skim through, and there are one or two things that could be added from Steen's article, but most of it is based on Oborne's book, and a few other sources that emerged after Oborne, which are already included in the article. There are one or two opinions that could be added, but nothing that would necessitate a FAR in my opinion. I will see what I can add in the next week or so. Sarastro (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, just to note for Buidhe or for anyone following this unfamiliar with the topic, this article is NOT about Rhodesia as all of the events took place in either South Africa or England. Sarastro (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)