Talk:Learie Constantine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jhall1 (talk · contribs) 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time yet to look at the article in depth, so these are first impressions. I think that all the necessary content and citations are there, but it could do with some work on the formatting. In particular, I think the lead section is too long. One doesn't even see the Table of Contents when viewing the first screenful of the article. Also most of the first couple of paragraphs of the lead are devoted to his cricket. I'd like to see his life subsequent to cricket - which was probably even more important - given greater prominence. It might be worth mentioning in the section on the 1933 tour that he was no longer as fast as he had been in 1928, and not as fast as Martindale, though still pretty sharp. (If you need a citation for that, I have one.) And one minor thing. I happened to notice that the word "however" appeared 34 times (now 33, as I removed one)! JH (talk page) 10:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review!

Trimmed the lead, but still not sure the ToC is visible. Can you suggest any further cuts? --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the 33 howevers (ouch!) down to a more reasonable 8. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've no references for his reduced pace in '33, unless I've missed something obvious, so that reference would be great. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is still longer than I'd like. I'll need to find a spare hour or so to see if I can suggest some more radical surgery. But maybe it's just me who likes to see brief leads, as I've just checked Don Bradman, which is a Featured Article, and the lead is little if at all shorter.

I think given the extraordinary length, nature and variety of his career, this lead is going to be long if it is to meet WP:LEAD and cover the main points of the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I confess that I'd never previously read WP:LEAD. Having now done so, I see that you're well within the suggested length given the total length of the article. My own personal preference is for something much shorter, but I see that that is inconsistent with Wikipedia's policy. I'd still like to see a mention of the significance of his post-cricket career in the very first paragraph, though. JH (talk page) 22:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a bit more and there is quite a lot now in that first paragraph. I try to make the first paragraph quite general so would be reluctant to put in too much more as I hope it now summarises his achievements fairly thoroughly. The danger now is repeating what the rest of the lead says. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In The Cricket Captains of England, Alan Gibson writes: "In 1933 the West Indians were here, with two fast bowlers, or rather one-and-a-bit. Martindale was fast, probably as fast as anyone in the world except Larwood. Constantine was not as fast as he had been a few years earlier, but could still bowl a very fast ball from time to time..." That's from p159 of the 1989 Pavilion Library hardback edition, ISBN 1851453903. JH (talk page) 18:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Put this in (but used my own edition, although the page number is the same, it turns out). --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to barrel in, but I have an infobox query: Should Nelson be included as a domestic team? I thought that field was only for first-class clubs but I could be wrong. Either way, the years should be 1929–1942. Big Dom 17:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, no it shouldn't. I really should check infoboxes more carefully. Thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First tranche of suggestions/questions

I wondered if I could get any useful guidance on what should appear "up front" from looking at other articles about major cricketers who had subsequently gone on to fame in other spheres. The only two that I could think of were Lord Harris and Stanley Jackson, but neither of their articles is well enough developed to be useful. (C.B. Fry is something of a special case.) Not necessarily in the words below, but these are the essential facts about his life that I think ought to be brought to the reader's attention as quickly as possible, preferably in the first couple of sentences:

"Learie Nicholas Constantine, Baron Constantine MBE (21 September 1901 – 1 July 1971) was a West Indian Test cricketer, who lived for many years in England, qualified as a lawyer and was later appointed Trinidad's High Commissioner to the UK. He did much to fight racial discrimination in the UK."

Though that's all covered in your first paragraph, it's a very long paragraph, and someone not interested in cricket might not read that far.

Fine with me, and I've adopted a slightly tweaked version of this for the first sentences. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article UK Sport, the Sports Council (UK Sport's predecessor) was only formed in 1972. If that's correct, then he couldn't have been on it as he died in 1971. Perhaps it was some other body with a similar name and function?

I realised that myself when I linked it. It was definitely called the Sports Council but I have no idea of any relationship with the current one, so I've unlinked it. On reflection, I'm not sure why I did so in the first place. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Constantine's mother, Anaise Pascall, was the daughter of slaves" - are you sure? As I understand it, Wilberforce managed to get slavery abolished throughout the British Empire in 1833, and if both his mother's parents were slaves as your wording implies then his mother and his mother's mother would have had to have been getting on a bit when they gave birth as 68 years had elapsed before Learie was born.

This one is definite and I think it comes direct from Learie. Her parents were from modern Nigeria and were brought to South America from where they escaped - hence no connection with Britain, they escaped to Trinidad. I thought this was too much for this article but it is in Victor Pascall in full as he was Anaise's brother. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The club was highly competitive and motivated, partly as a reaction to the racial discrimination that its players and supporters encountered in their daily lives" - do you have a citation to say that was the reason (or is it covered by the citatiion at the end of the following sentence)?

Covered in the ref at the end of the next sentence. I think it is fairly explicit in Beyond a Boundary as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"When he went, he left behind his wife, whom he had married in 1927" - her name?

Added "Norma" as this is fully covered in the Personal life section. I can expand to Norma Cox if you want. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"International cricketer" - 'Test cricketer' might be a better heading. Arguably he was an international cricketer from 1923, even though WI did not yet have Test status. You can argue either way, as WI did not play against any other nation before 1928, but 'Test cricketer' avoids all debate. (And you could argue that Trinidad against Barbados was an international match.)

The only reason I went for this title was because I wanted to include his League cricket and style and technique in this section. Originally, it was Test cricketer and then Lancashire League was its own section. But this left Style and technique a little lonely so I stuck them all together and changed the title. I've now changed it to "Later career": Does that work, or should we re-jig the whole section title layout here? --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where Wikipedia articles exist for the tours he went on, it would help to Wikilink to them.

To be honest, the coverage of tours is a little haphazard so I tend not to bother as I don't think it adds much to the article. I would prefer to leave it as it is, but if you think it is important I will do so. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for the moment. More to follow when time permits. So far I've found nothing that would stop me approving a GA rating. JH (talk page) 11:23, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great help so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I'm happy with the changes you've made as a result. I hope to get on to the next bit in a day or two. JH (talk page) 10:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Tranche

Possibly alter "Later career" heading to "Later cricket career"? After all, cricket wasn't his only career. If that's too unwieldy, then why not "Test career"?

Done this, going for "Later cricket career" as the section is not just Tests but also League cricket. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Following his first season in Nelson in 1929" - possibly add "(see below)" so that the reader won't think that his career with Nelson isn't covered? (Though they ought to know from the contents list, they may have forgotten.)

I'm never a fan of "see below" as they can be troublesome if someone re-orders the section. I think the Contents should be enough. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've done lots of minor tinkering with the wording. If there's anything that you don't agree with, feel free to undo it as none of it was that important. For me to do next: Test series against England in 1933 and 1934–5. JH (talk page) 11:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with any of your tinkering! It has cleaned it up very well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Third tranche

I've now completed his cricket. I didn't find anything major. I've been thinking about the top-level structure of the article, though. I was wondering if it would help the reader to introduce another level of section heading: "Cricket career", under which the two existing cricket sections would go, and another to be called something like "Life after cricket" or "Lawyer and diplomat" for the later sections. But on reflection I'm not sure that it would be an improvement, partly because the section about his life in Nelson wouldn't really fit in either place. One difficulty is that the "cricket"/"other things" and the "life when based in West Indies" / "life when based in England" splits, which are the two obvious possibilities for top-level splits, cut across each other. JH (talk page) 11:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean and I'm not too happy with the structure myself. I've now combined the two cricket sections into "cricket career" and left the Life in England section, keeping his experiences in Nelson within that. But I'm still not totally convinced, and the cricket section seems a little long in the contents. However, it may be the best compromise. Let me know if you think of anything better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 17:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry about my "improvisated" by the way. I don't know how that slipped through! JH (talk page) 18:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything going okay with this review? I see that progress is being made, but since it's been a month just checking in. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for taking so long. Christmas hasn't helped, but I hope to finish it within the next week or two. JH (talk page) 17:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth tranche

I've now done up to and including the section about his court case against Imperrial London Hotels. I haven't found anything major, but have added some wikilinks and attempted to clarify and tighten up the wording. You'd better check to ensure I haven't inadvertantly changed the meaning anywhere. "He also took part in a film documentary in 1943." If you can find the title of the film, it would be worth including. JH (talk page) 17:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the source gives it, but I'll have a look. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it did, so added it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final tranche

Please check the changes I've made, to make sure that I haven't changed the meaning anywhere when attempting to clarify.

Suggestions/questions:

"Roman Law examination" - I suspect this will puzzle many readers, as it puzzled me. Can't find a helpful wl for it.

I've no idea, so took it out. The article makes it clear he passed a series of examinations, so this one may be too much detail. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The speech placed doubts in the minds of the electorate, which may already have been questioning his commitment to Trinidad given his long absence abroad." - I assume that the latter bit is in Mason's book rather than plausible speculation on your part?

Yes! I've attributed it to Mason. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"According to Mason, the speech placed doubts in the minds of the electorate" - but the next citation included seems to be for Howat rather than Mason. (Did I make a mistake and mislead you when I said "I assume that the latter bit is in Mason's book"?)

Spot the deliberate mistake... Cleared it up (it is from Mason, but I had two refs together. Split them now.) --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"role" is used an awful lot - I've removed some.

Very true. Removed some more as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"but it evolved into a more ambassadorial role as an official representative of the Trinidad government" - not clear quite what this means. Isn't that the role of a High Commissioner by definition?

Not according to the source, which makes a clear distinction. But it's not something I'm especially clear on myself. Any suggestions? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about "evolved into a more traditional ambassadorial role..."?

Done as suggested. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This quote from Howat seems to comtain a typo or a missing word: "In the language of the game he loved ... his timing was wrong but though he was full of good intentions."

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Trinidad Cross" - looks to me as if it should probably be the Trinity Cross, but I haven't changed it.

Correct, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "Personal life" is the best title for the final section, given its contents.

Tried "Family life and personality". Any better? --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's more descriptive, but yoking them together in the heading is a little awkard. Perhaps make them two sepate sectioons, even though the first would be very short?

Done as suggested. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There could be a risk that readers will be confused by reference #1 being to the OED piece by Howat and think that subsequent references to Howat are to that piece rather than to his book in the Bibliography.

Changed all book refs to Howat (1976). --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His name should be added to the article List of members of Middle Temple, and in our "own" article the category Members of the Middle Temple should be added. (I've not done that myself, as I'm about to go out.)

Did the latter, but I've not touched the former as I'm reluctant to add a name to a list which should be considerably longer! --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Among the categories is "British Roman Catholics". If the only evidence for that is that he went to a Catholic primary school, then I think it should be removed. (I went to a C of E primary school, but I've been an atheist since the age of twenty or so.) JH (talk page) 11:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made three responses above, and once those are addressed I'm happy with the text. However, reading the Good Article criteria has reminded me of the desirability of illustrations. We have three from his cricketing days, but none of him in later life, and at least one would be a good thing, though I wouldn't fail the article or put it on hold on that account. After all it's supposed to be good, not perfect! JH (talk page) 20:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is one of copyright. The images in the article are copyright free, ones of his later life are not. Because free images are available, it is not possible to have copyrighted images in here as well. Complicated and dull, but necessary as it is a minefield! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:31, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. JH (talk page) 22:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article passes

Having completed the review, and with the suggested changes having been implemented, the article passes, having satisfied all of the Good Article criteria:

Well-written: Yes.
Factually accurate and verifiable: Yes.
Broad in its coverage: Yes.
Neutral: Yes.
Stable: Yes.
Illustrated, if possible, by images: Yes, within the constraints imposed by copyright.

JH (talk page) 10:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]