Talk:Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/GA1

GA Review

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

I'll be happy to review this article for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The cricket jargon is hard to get through but otherwise this is fine.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

There are four paragraphs, usually three are all that is required, especially for an article of this length.
Also this paragraph, "Overall, Harvey ended with 1129 runs at 53.76 in the first-class matches with four centuries, placing him sixth on the aggregates and seventh in the batting averages." is a stub and should either be combined or expanded, probably combined to make it three paras in the lead. H1nkles (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding early tour

Check wikilink here, " Harvey was made [[[List of cricket terms#T 12th man]]]" it isn't linking in the article.

done YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly as a wicket ignoramous I found your description of the games completely baffling. I know that you write a lot of wicket articles and that it would be very tedious to explain all the various vocabulary words and rules of cricket in each article. Nonetheless, to the uninitiated the game descriptions and use of vocabulary are confusing. I won't fail it for this but I just thought you should know. H1nkles (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know everyone tells me, even though I wikilink the terminology. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Test omission

This section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Fourth Test

"Immediately after the Headingley Test, Harvey made 32 as Australia amassed 456 and defeated Derbyshire by an innings.[5][61]" stub paragraph please expand or combine. Otherwise this section is fine. H1nkles (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Fifth Test

Another stub paragraph, "In the entire first-class tour, he scored four centuries to aggregate 1129 runs at 53.76.[68]"

done YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Later matches

This section is fine.

Regarding Playing role

"He made 23 batting at No. 3 against Oxford University and one against Hampshire while batting at No. 7.[6][8][11][14][16][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][33][34][37][39][62][69][70][71][73][75][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]" do you really need 34 citations for this sentence or even this section? Seems a bit of an overkill.

Yes because there is no one source that says overall he always batted at No 5-6, so I had to add in all the scorecards so that the reader can look them all up to verify that he indeed always batted at No 5-6 except for the exception. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The chart is informative. H1nkles (talk) 17:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding references

Links are good and references are credible.

Overall comments

The article is pretty good.
I would pass it right now except for the stub paragraphs that should be addressed. I will therefore put it on hold for a week for you to make the changes. Otherwise well done. H1nkles (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I'll pass it now. H1nkles (talk) 07:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]