Talk:Zak Crawley

Semi-Protect request

Please add semi protection to this page. It is being vandalised by users as this player is doing very well. Mrmariomaster (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: requests for increases to the page protection level should be made at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, it HAS been done.

Very slipshod

OK, someone rushed to be first to update this page (well done, give yourself a gold star and a smiley sticker!), but at least don't be so careless. What is 'on the second ay', exactly? And while we are at it, it's 'fewer' (runs), not 'less'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.116.103 (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting the typo. It happens. Someone has corrected it, which is excellent. You may want to actually check the chronology of things before you suggest it was rushed though - I'm just a bit crap at typing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure. Clearly it was rushed through, as it was up within about 30-40 minutes of the event :) The typo was there when I opened the page, so evidently there was no other 'chronology' to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.116.103 (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Try here for the chronology. Trust me, when you see people updating scores by the over or similar, you'll find 30-40 minutes positively tortoise like. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

When I say 30-40 minutes of the event, that's when I looked at it. It might have been there for 30 minutes before that, for all I know. The point is that this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, with articles checked properly for grammar etc before posting. And the facts, of course :). - Updating scores by the over? That's just sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.112.95 (talk) 09:54, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Fifth wicket partnership

As most of us will know, the previous record was set by Fletcher and Greig. However, it's a little odd that it is by no means easy to find this on Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.116.103 (talk) 18:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are the one removing perfectly good content that was previously stable, and discussion takes place here, not in edit summaries. Spike 'em (talk) 10:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

As a start, why are you removing content that actually gives readers some insight into what he is like as s player? You are adding multiple bare references to the same page. Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. This is unconstructive. To start with I'd say being named cricketer of the year is a pretty bloody important thing to put in the lead. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the lead should mention his England Test status in the present tense rather than past. I can't change myself ATM due to 3RR restrictions... Spike 'em (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll come back to that later if I can - need to go and watch some cricket in a moment... The problem might be that he's tended to be in and out of the side a bit. Given his start to this season, I wasn't entirely expecting him to even be named in the squad for the NZ series. Can you think of a way to caveat things a little? Maybe an "as of..." sort of thing? Or "since his debut he has been a regular member of the Test squad"? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

POV

I'm going to tag this article with POV. The lead describes him as a masterful player, when his stats say he is one of England's worst ever openers. There are also referenced statements in the lead which aren't in the body. Desertarun (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What exactly in the lead is unreferenced in the article without a reference in the lead itself?

One sentence in the lead quotes George Dobell and Vic Marks - both highly respected journalists writing in reliable sources. It might be interesting to find a quote which balances those perspectives for the lead I suppose, or perhaps work on a playing style sort of section if you think enough can be found. It probably can, but would involve trawling through hundreds of articles to bring together all viewpoints. But I'm really not sure this is worthy of a POV tag. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lead is the problem. It should be moved out of the lead into the body, or alternatively balanced with his poor form. The POV tag will need to stay until a solution is found. Desertarun (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

That sentence has two references already in it of course. It's factually accurate in my view as well and summarises his playing style without puffery. We might be able to find something to add about aggressiveness outside off stump perhaps, which is both a strength and a weakness, but at that stage we're adding quite a lot of technical stuff to the lead.

The prose does provide balance fwiw, for example this paragraph:

Crawley scored his second Test century during the first match of the West Indies tour,[68] and his innings of 121 saw Viv Richards describe him as "a magnificent player".[75][76] His performances in the other two matches of the series, however, led to critics questioning his shot selection, especially outside off stump, with the perception that he needed to address his tendency to be out playing an off drive, particularly when the ball is swinging.[77][78][79]

I'll see what I can find, but this really isn't worth tagging imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Well first off we need to decide is the first sentence of the second paragraph staying in the lead? Per WP:LEAD content in the lead must be in the body, and neither of those quotes are in the body. So either we delete them from the lead and move them to the body. Or else we copy them from the lead into the body. The lead should summarise the article, and quotes aren't a summary, so the first would be my preferred and the simplest option. Desertarun (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Sure, they ideally shouldn't be just there, but I imagine we could pull many articles that do exactly the same thing - all the ones calling someone one of the "greatest" bowlers/batters/all-rounders/wicket-keepers for example (try Shakib Al Hasan as a starter). This isn't an article that's even attempting to reach GA status - it's fine as it is just now. He's young, evolving and has years to play - once he's done, or nearly done, it'll be worth looking at in that sort of light. It's really not a big deal and everything's referenced here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

As you've said they ideally shouldn't be there I'm going to go ahead and move them into the body, and also remove the POV tag, I'm OK with you undoing this, we can try something else. Desertarun (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2023 (UTC)