Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abe Waddington/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Abe Waddington

Featured article candidates/Abe Waddington/archive1

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abe Waddington was a particularly grumpy, but quite popular, Yorkshire cricketer from the 1920s. He tended to promise more than he achieved but to a point he had a good career. Off the pitch, he was quite unusual for the period, and got up to quite a bit. An interesting chap who fitted rather well into a team of social misfits who dominated English cricket in the early 1920s. This article was first expanded around 3 years ago, and has been a GA for a while. It had a peer review around that time, but has been expanded somewhat since then. It has had some excellent feedback on the article talk page from Crisco 1492, Brianboulton, Tim riley, SchroCat, Cliftonian and Giants2008. Any further comments would be greatly appreciated. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and images (review was done). Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the earlier review and help! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – meets all FA criteria for text IMO, and gives a full, balanced and most readable account of its subject. Fine range of sources and thoroughly cited throughout. Good stuff, and I enjoyed reading it again after the recent informal peer review on the talk page. We Lancastrians could do with a WP editor as scholarly and devoted as Sarastro is for Yorkshire CCC. Tim riley (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the earlier comments and your kind words. I seem to be on a run of Yorkshire articles, but I think the next ones will be something else, you'll be pleased to know! Sarastro1 (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Nice and interesting article. I was a fellow commenter at PR and had my concerns all happily addressed there. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems to meet all FA criteria for text. Well written and referenced. Mackey23 (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As Sarastro said above, I was one of the editors who provided a talk page review, although I admittedly didn't find much. While this is shorter than most of Sarastro's other work, it still reaches the same high standards I've come to expect from this editor, and deserves to have the star. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, support and kind comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I gave my tuppence previously as Sarastro noted above and in my opinion this article fully meets the FA standards. Well done Sarastro for an enlightening, well-written and most of all entertaining read. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for earlier help and your kind support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Ref 57 lacks publisher location

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at ref 66. I don't think the article title is correct, as it duplicates that of the previous ref.

It goes to show that copy-and-paste is not always the best way! Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this earlier, and have just one outstanding gripe. It is with the sentence: "In total, Waddington made four trips to Australia, apart from his visit as a player." A total is absolute; following it with "apart from" makes no sense. I suggest you delete the words "In total", or make it "five trips ... including his". Otherwise, a worthy addition to the cricket article corpus. Brianboulton (talk) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done as suggested. Thanks for your support and earlier comments. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Crisco 1492 did an image review here. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.