Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sid Barnes

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 22:39, 7 January 2008.

Sid Barnes

Check external links

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... it's a collaborative piece of work by many members of the cricket WikiProject. This is the latest article to be improved in a quest to achieving a Featured Topic on one of the sides Barnes represented, The Invincibles.

Barnes had a fascinating life, filled with overachievement, controversy and a dash of tragedy. We hope we've done him justice. Dweller (talk) 15:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twenty Years review

The article is a very nice piece on a great of Australian cricket, ~~but i have several issues with it:~~

in the section on the twelfth man incident, it uses the word "twelfth" twice, yet in the image caption it uses "12th", id personally like to see it written as twelfth.
good spot. I'll check that out and fix --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statistical analysis section uses "Barnes's" in para 1, yet in the image caption of his career performances it uses " Barnes' ". Not sure if this is used elsewhere in the article, but "Barnes's" looks plain ugly. It should be all in one way, preferably " Barnes' "
Agreed on need for consistency. Apostrophe#Singular_nouns_ending_with_an_.22s.22_or_.22z.22_sound makes it clear it should be Barnes's, even though I'd personally go with your preference too :-) I'll fix it. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statistical analysis section seems ugly, and out of place. Although it is a useful section, it needs some more information. Two small sections, and two large images is not very pleasing to the eye.
Hmm. That one needs a little thought. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I think. --Dweller (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Another image of Barnes wouldnt go astray (in the later career section).~~
I'll see what I or one of my collaborators can rustle up. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Other than these minor nitpicks, the article is good for FA. Twenty Years 08:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Support Fully satisfied with the additions, the article is clearly ready for FA. ~~The last 2 para's in stat analysis could prob be merged (Comparing.... and Bradman is....).~~ FA Quality article. Twenty Years 10:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: excellent :) --Brískelly^{[citazione necessaria]} 09:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hurricanehink review

Some comments. It seems a little too long, or perhaps the last paragraph could delve a bit more into his personal history. post-war era. - it is uncertain what war it refers to. is best remembered in cricket terms - this is a bit POV, and it would be record if the record was clearly stated (something along the lines of: Barnes and his captain both scored 234 points in X game, setting the world record for Y). While I'm thinking of it, the article needs non-breaking spaces; 2 innings instead of 2 innings. Check the wikilinks, making sure they go where you want them to go. I clicked on Twelfth man and I got a dab page. I'd like better information for each of the images. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the constructive review. My collaborators and I have worked on these issues. I'll break them down:

"Too long". The article is comfortably within the WP:SIZE guidelines. If you mean it's imbalanced, his playing career is what makes him truly notable and we feel comfortable with the balance.
"Post-war". Thanks. Done.
"Best remembered". Thanks. Done.
Non breaking spaces. Not sure what you think this would add, nor where you think they should be placed.
Wikilinks. Good spot. Should all be done.
Images. We're comfortable with the captions, which need to be succinct for MOS and are usually referred to in an explanatory manner by the text that they accompany.

Thanks again. You've helped improve the article. --Dweller (talk) 12:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I meant I thought the lede was too long. In fact, after reading it again, I think it's fine, since the third paragraph goes into his controversies. Non-breaking spaces are required for FA's, as 2 points looks better than 2
points, in the event that the number was at the end of a line. Non-breaking spaces should be used for all numbers that are followed by a unit. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All should be done now. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. One last thing - I notice two books do not have ISSN numbers; do they not exist, or were they not found? --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(If Dweller doesn't mind me responding). Both were published prior to the introduction of the ISBN and ISSN systems. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I figured it was something like that. Thanks. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I massaged it a bit before and feel it fulfils criteria. Prose is good. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support—This is very well-written indeed, and sets the standard for sports articles. Can you space the ellipsis dots correctly? See MOS. Tony (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. Ellipses should now be fixed. --Dweller (talk) 13:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a good article on a interesting cricket player. I think that it fully meets the FA criteria. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All comments above now dealt with. Any more? --Dweller (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I did a very minor amount of work on references in the early days but the article has blossomed since I left it alone (!) so I feel able to offer my full support. Good work to all involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.