Jump to content

Talk:Ron Saggers/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
  • I can't see what the reference after "The touring party, led by Donald Bradman in his last season, was nicknamed The Invincibles and was widely regarded as one of the strongest ever." refers to in that sentence.
  • Replaced quote with one referring to the name "Invincibles" --
  • "NSW Colts" I know what this refers to but I'd either change to New South Wales Colts, or provide some backwards reference, i.e. NSW in brackets after a previous mention of New South Wales.
  • There are no further mentions of it, so I have removed the brackets. They are mentioned in a reference refering to the place, not the team, so I have just expanded the abbreviation. SGGH speak! 08:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "208 runs at 34.66" Again it makes sense to me, but I'd prefer "208 runs at an average of 34.66" for the non-cricketing reader. I don't think you need to repeat it every other time though. I'll leave that bit up to your preference.
  • "followed by scores of 1 and 33 on the home leg". I'd say "in the" was better. Do you also mean leg? Or would fixture, match or game be better?
  • Dates flit between month first, e.g. January 1, 1941, and date first, e.g. 6 December 1941. You ought to stick to one style.
  • "he placed in seven matches" Should this be played?
  • "He then suffered a drop in form with the bat, and in 1946–1947 scored only 176 runs at 17.60 from eight matches, however he remained quick behind the stumps with 16 catches and seven stumpings." This appears to be a run-on sentence. I'd split into two, between matches and however.
  • Who are Al Hassett's XI?
  • A selection for a Test trial captained by Lindsay Hassett. It should be AL Hassett's XI. As a mere trial selection, albeit one that plaeyed F-C cricket, I am not sure its inclusion is relevant. I will leave it for SGGH to decide what he wants to do here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd rather some explanation be added. I had no idea what it meant. My suggestion would be "now playing for Al Hassett's XI, a Test trial side," or something similar. Peanut4 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "now playing for Al Hassett's XI" reads to me as continuing to play for AL Hassett's XI (I am sure that there is a name for this tense, but my knowledge of formal grammar is poor) which is not the case. There was no team as such but merely a selection created by dividing the leading players in Australia into two squads for the purposes of a trial match; the team was named for the captain, Hassett. He played two one-off matches for teams playing under this name, both times the teams were in essence scratch teams, created independently and not intended as permanent teams. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On December 10, 1948, Saggers, now playing for Al Hassett's XI as well as continuing his career at New South Wales,[7] scored 38 against Queensland,[17] and at the same time aided Jack Moroney in his own comeback to cricket at New South Wales by suggesting he subtract three years from his age when he submitted his registration form." Reading through again, and going by your last comment, this needs re-wording. Did he score 38 for Al Hassett's XI or for NSW? How did he continue playing for both teams? I can guess, but those without cricketing knowledge may not know. Also, has the latter half of the sentence, any significance on the first part? If not I'd split into two sentences, otherwise, there's too many thoughts going on in one sentence. Peanut4 (talk) 01:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Saggers accompanied the 1948 Ashes tour to England as a replacement for Tallon." Should this be replacement or understudy?
  • "warm up" Perhaps hyphenate warm-up?
  • "He then played in the warm up match against Essex where Australia reached 721 runs, Saggers himself hitting his highest first-class score, and the only century of his whole career, when he hit 104 not out, putting on 166 in 65 minutes with Sam Loxton, who, with Bill Brown and Donald Bradman, also scored centuries." This is a very long and complicated sentence. I'd suggest breaking it up.
  • "England's second innings reached 365 with Saggers taking one catch to secure the wicket of Ken Cranston, however thanks to a knock of 182 from Arthur Morris and 173 not out from Bradman, Saggers did not need to bat again in the second innings as Australia defeated England by seven wickets." Another run-on sentence. I'd suggest breaking between Cranston and however.
  • "In the Second Test of the series at Cape Town, Saggers again made little impact with the bat" It says little, but did he in fact bat at all?
  • Nowhere in the text, does it say how many test matches does he say, or his stats. I would suggest changing the lead to say six matches for Australia, rather than briefly, and maybe summaries his test stats at the end of the "international career" section.
  • Is there any other details of his life outside cricket? Any more details of his death?
  • Unfortunately not, both I and blyguen (sp?) have trawled through the sources we do have, and cannot find much on either early life or death. There just doesn't appear to be the sources available to us. SGGH speak! 08:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those suggestion should be fairly easy. To be honest, it's a decent article, and very close to passing GAN. Peanut4 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope SGGH does not mind me attending to some of these but I would hold off on promotion until he has had a chance to respond; in case he is not happy with some of my changes. Thanks for the review. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. When I saw you were editing, and it was SGGH who nominated, I was going to wait a while. I will leave it for the two points I've added above, and those last two at the end. Peanut4 (talk) 23:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't mind, all help is always appreciated. Your alterations seem fine to me, I'll check on the ones you asked me to look at. SGGH speak! 08:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything now seems pretty much in order. I'll leave it open for a couple of days to see if you can find anything about any life outside cricket, or anyone else has seen the GAN / this review, and has some details. I presume there must be something about his death for the date to be known? Peanut4 (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His death date at cricinfo, but I will try another dig for info. SGGH speak! 07:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no luck as of yet. SGGH speak! 09:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look myself and can't find anything whatsoever, not even a snippet. Some must exist somewhere, but it may be difficult to find. And I don't see it as necessary for GA. However, if you do go want to push this to FAC, I expect some more details will need to be found. Two other minor points, one which isn't even visible anyway.

  • I wonder if it would be worth putting the full dates of birth and death in the main body of the article, rather than just the lead and infobox.
  • Do you need all the blank template lines in the infobox? Obviously it makes no difference whatsoever to the view of the article, but it does take two or three scrolls when editing to get to the main part of the text, when a lot is blank.

On the whole, the article was in a very good shape before I came along. It was probably already GA standard, but I feel it's much better now. If you were to push on towards FA standard, I would suggest finding more details of his early life, family and post-cricket career, even if it's just one or two lines for each. Also, if more meat can be found to beef up the cricket career, it would make it an even better read. Great work. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    . Peanut4 (talk) 21:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Saggers/GA1&oldid=1079073330"