Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wally Hammond/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 SandyGeorgia 22:07, 7 August 2010 [1].

Wally Hammond

[edit]

Wally Hammond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time I have nominated the article. Since the first one, it has been thoroughly copy-edited, the prose has been tightened and hopefully it flows better now. Wally Hammond was a cricketer in the 1920s and 1930s, regarded as one of the best cricketers of all time, becoming captain of England and being the first former professional to captain the side. He was a moody so-and-so and not especially popular but had a few interesting things happen to him.Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Just from looking at the first part of the article:

  • Isn't the first paragraph of the lede a little ... long?
Yes, but he did quite a lot in his career. If it is a problem, some of it could be cut. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you find a way to split it? You are allowed four paragraphs, you know.
Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it a good idea to put today's South African state in the infobox for place of death, rather than the 1965 state where he died?
Changed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "left him weaker" but not sure if this is enough. It didn't affect him in terms of mobility or anything, just left him weaker and a bit frail. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think frail is a better term than weak, less pejorative anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are heaps of them, although Mattinbgn (talk · contribs) has stopped unfortunately YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media It is general practice to place images with faces looking into or out from the text (not away from), aesthetically this is particularly desirable for the infobox, are there any further images available? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None that are suitable I don't think, although others may know better about which images are able to be used. Most photos of him from around this time were anonymous, which may or may not help: I'm not brilliant with image stuff! However, there are no better images that I have available which can be used.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The positioning of images so they look into rather than out from the text is one of the most minor—and, ironically, most debatable—concerns when it comes to image use. In the case of the infobox, in particular, the quality of the image far outweighs which direction the face happens to be oriented. You have found a very good and dynamic image, and you should not give a second thought to the fact that Wally's skull happens to be oriented approximately 50° to the right and his visible eye perhaps 30° to the right.—DCGeist (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This sentence in Style and technique doesn't parse: "Bill Bowes believed that he was a very good bowler who would take it seriously prefering to avoid it."—DCGeist (talk) 00:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This passage in Retirement needs to be emended: "However, Hammond was extremely angry, saying loudly, either to Bradman or the umpires, 'a fine ****ing way to start a series.'" Wikipedia is not censored and its encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that may offend; per our style guideline on quotations, "When quoting a vulgarity or obscenity, it should appear exactly as it does in the cited source; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." You have three citations for this passage. If either of the two hardbound (i.e., highest-quality) sources provide the full vulgarity, so must we. (In some cases involving quoted vulgarities, it is appropriate as an alternative to recast the sentence so the quoted excerpt does not encompass the vulgarity; that would seem to be inappropriate here, as the vulgarity is central and rather the point.) If neither of those sources provide the full vulgarity, then the fullest available version, in the body text of the online Williamson article (to be preferred in any circumstance to headline copy), must be used: "A fine f***ing way to start a series."—DCGeist (talk) 00:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... The books give "bloody" but I suspect that may be delicacy on the authors' parts. I think "fucking" is far more likely, as Hammond wasn't exactly shy in his use of language, but none of the sources gives it as such, only the online source gives "f***ing". The author of the cricinfo article is very reliable, but I'm not sure, looking at his sources, where he gets it from either. So I've put it to "bloody" for now, as that's what both the printed sources say.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's f***king lovely. I'll give this some thought and see if I come up with an alternative suggestion.—DCGeist (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, mate: [2]. Not exactly sure what that link will produce for you, but it's meant to send you to Jack Fingleton: The Man Who Stood Up to Bradman, by Greg Gowden (Allen & Unwin, 2008), p.176, which gives the unbowdlerized quote with the full, unshy vulgarity.—DCGeist (talk) 10:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added it. Thanks, much appreciated.--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: For Style and technique, is there anything available on his running between the wickets?—DCGeist (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have found. Generally, no-one comments on someone's running unless they are very fast, an exceptionally good judge of a run, or incredibly bad at it. Hammond was none of these, so nothing is mentioned. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:49, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, often the case. Just checking.—DCGeist (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media review: Five images. All Commons. All very good to excellent quality. Free status of all very well evidenced.—DCGeist (talk) 10:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Two queries concerning end of Serious illness:

  • "He also argued that the treatment of the illness adversely affected Hammond's subsequent character and personality, leading to depressive and moody behaviour."
  • The "treatment of the illness" and not the illness itself? Is that right?
Yes, the theory is that something like mercury was used to treat him which can have an effect on the personality. I'll add a little to clarify this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That winter, Hammond coached in South Africa to aid his recovery."
Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In England captain: "He captained the Gentlemen against the Players at Lord's—having previously led the Players..." The article has not previously described him as having led the Players. Can you add that to the discussion of the relevant year(s)?—DCGeist (talk) 21:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: General issue: It needs to be made clearer how many Tests were played in each series, so we can contextualize the data on his series performances. I suppose we can assume that all Ashes have been five-game series. (Though a few in the 20th century were of other lengths, yes?) But how many tests were played against New Zealand in 1937? (No clue.) Against South Africa in 1938–39? (Seems like four.) Against West Indies in 1939? (Could be three.) Just go through and add the necessary word or two where it's missing, so the reader isn't left with unnecessary doubt. Various ways of doing it, right? "In the four Tests..." "In the four-match series..." "In the fourth and final Test..."—DCGeist (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hope it's not too clunky. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, seems fine.—DCGeist (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In Notes, the two notes should themselves have source citations.—DCGeist (talk) 23:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Do you find inclusion in the recent Cricinfo juried All-Time England XI at all noteworthy, in terms of the endurance of his reputation?—DCGeist (talk) 02:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I stopped reading them after Denis Compton was ranked behind Pietersen, because the popular vote was used as a tiebreaker. Although it seems that the jury vote, I'm not sure if they make the nominations, because I don't know what numbskull would rate Hassett, Doug Walters and Norm O'Neill behind Mark Waugh [3]??? Or Brett Lee behind Bill Johnston ?!?!?! [4] YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:54, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving aside the Pietersen v Compton unpleasantness (let's be generous and call the KP tip "hopeful"), the English jury does strike me as a very strong one. I'm not familiar with Australian media—how do you rate that jury? I recall about a year ago reading a detailed description of the nomination process, but that's long lost...—DCGeist (talk) 03:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Australian examples I gave were for the shortlist, not the final pick, but the shortlist seems to have been chosen by a Cricinfo staffer. And Cricinfo and other day-to-day newspapers have a strongly recentist bent because today's performance always has to be the best ever etc. Many journalists don't seem to be up to speed with anything except the last 15 years. The Australian panel didn't come up with anything unusual, except for three current journalists (who chose 5+ players of the last decade) and non-historians voting for Hayden (flat track bully). None of them chose M Waugh or Lee :) but I wouldn't be surprised if some didn't know who Johnston or O'Neill was. But the rest were good; at least there were Frith, Roebuck and Haigh to cast a few votes for Harvey, Davidson and Lindwall. I think the worse selections will be for the India ones, as cricket commentators there never give examples or comparisons to anyone older than 25 years ago, and seem to think that history started with the economic boom of the 1990s. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I miss Lee...and MacGill. But then I'm all about stylish bowling.—DCGeist (talk) 04:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My personal view is that it isn't really worth adding, for similar reasons to YM above. However, if other people consider it important enough, I am happy to add it. I wasn't too bothered about the ICC Hall of Fame, but someone else put it in so I didn't take it out. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although as you say, it does illustrate his enduring appeal... Hmmm... --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec)

Yes, that's my concern, more than this specific Cricinfo poll. It seems clear that today, in 2010, he is still regarded as one of the greatest batsmen ever, most certainly one of the greatest English cricketers ever. And I'm not quite sure the article makes that sufficiently clear.—DCGeist (talk) 09:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I just realised that I did take out the I.C.C. thing. Oh dear. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:10, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, and as you noticed, I added the cricinfo thing and also the ICC hall of fame. Hopefully this shows that he is still highly regarded. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I tweaked it slightly, figuring the Hall of Fame induction announcement in January 2009 was more pertinent than the recent ceremony.—DCGeist (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In 1928–29 tour of Australia, I just want to make sure the tone of the following, concerning the 1929 county season, is fitting: "He used Hammond's bowling less due to the emergence of Tom Goddard, but Hammond was less successful with the bat than was expected. In first-class cricket, he scored 2,456 runs at an average of 64.63." That's a superb average, only a run below the average he recorded the previous year. Yet the tone of disappointment accurately characterizes the response?—DCGeist (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After his successes the previous winter, he was expected to be immense and probably score over 3,000 runs. At the time, averages over 60 were quite common as batting conditions were ridiculously easy. Having said that, he was second in the first-class averages, so it may have been a bit harsh (and I'm going on what the source says in saying he was expected to do better). I suspect it would have been number of runs rather than average which was disappointing. However, if it seems to be a little confusing, I can take it out as it's not a huge point. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a slight tweak in tone then, perhaps. It does seem a touch weird to imply that he was anything less than "successful." Perhaps: "...but Hammond was less dominant with the bat than was expected." What do you think?—DCGeist (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In Personality: "Other players who were involved in disputes with Hammond included Denis Compton, whose approach Hammond disliked..." Could you add just a word or two characterizing Compton's "approach" so we have a better idea what Hammond disliked?—DCGeist (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've called it a cavalier approach, as Hammond thought he was a bit too flash on and off the field. I can add a bit more explanation if you like, but I didn't want to make too big a thing of Compton.--Sarastro1 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice word! Perfect as is now.—DCGeist (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I have understood the description of his performance in the 1939 Championship correctly, he had an impressive batting average streak that began in 1933. That streak should be noted at its inception. I took a stab at it. Please take a look and emend as necessary.—DCGeist (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, perhaps in 1939, it should be mentioned that his seven successive seasons atop the averages was a record, as your contemporaneous source suggests ("an achievement that is unlikely ever to be rivalled"). Can you determine if it remains a record—add that fact if it is, or indicate who surpassed it if not?—DCGeist (talk) 01:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added, and yes it's still a record. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comprehensive, well-researched, well-structured, well-focused. Meets all the criteria, handily. A fine f***ing article.—DCGeist (talk) 10:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hammond, like many rather unpleasant people, was a fascinating character, and this article looks interesting, too. However, I have concerns about the overall quality of the prose. In the fraction of the article that I have read, I found:-

  • Inelegant prose: "His achievements achieved..."
  • Overlong and awkward: "In between these games, Gloucestershire arranged his appointment as assistant coach at Clifton College, Bristol, where he worked on his batting technique with former county cricketers John Tunnicliffe and George Dennett, whom Hammond acknowledged played a crucial role in his subsequent batting successes."
  • Likewise: "He did not have the opportunity to improve his record as Lord Harris, the Marylebone Cricket Club (M.C.C.) treasurer, noticed that Hammond was born in Kent and had not lived in Gloucestershire for the length of time required by the qualification rules of the County Championship and was therefore ineligible for the county."

These need fixing (rather than f***ing), and I recommend a careful trawl in search of further examples of untidy prose. On a positive note, I have to say the article looks to have improved considerably since I first saw it, many months ago. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've done the copyediting fixes on the specific problems you noted. There's nothing to say about "achievements achieved" other than it was a gaffe. I'll go through the rest of the article with an eye out for the sort of overlong sentences you identified.—DCGeist (talk) 00:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completed my pass. About a dozen longish sentences were recast over the remainder of the article. In addition, those and accompanying copyedits yielded a prose savings of 0.45 KB.—DCGeist (talk) 02:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just realized: While the lede describes him as a "primarily a middle-order batsman", the main text gives absolutely no clue what his most frequent position in England's or Gloucestershire's order was. That's sort of fundamental. And did he move down the order later in his career? The initial mention of his customary batting position (or positions, if he was not strongly identified with just one) would have to come before the middle paragraph of Career in the early 1930s, which describes his "unaccustomed position" as an opener in the South African series.—DCGeist (talk) 01:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to sort this. It's surprisingly hard to find a reference that says that he was a middle order batsman, and even harder to find one which says that he became one in around 1925. In the end, I've given a few scorecard refs to show him batting in the middle order in 1927 and made a point on his test debut of giving his batting position and summarising where he batted throughout his career. Hope this covers the point sufficiently. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can just put a footnote in there sourced to the oracle list of matches and tell the reader to peruse the scorecard to see that a certain order became more common thereafter YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 08:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Done as suggested, but left the Test position reference the same. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That takes care of it. All good.—DCGeist (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Read up to the part on his amateur career and only found a few things that really needed pointing out. Agree with Brian that this has improved substantially since the last time it was here.

  • Making an impression: A correspondant for The Times is mentioned at one point, but we never learn the person's name.
Times writers were often anonymous in cricket reports, so we don't know who wrote each article.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to form: "meaning he would play as an amateur in future." Should this be "in the future", or is this a common way of saying it in British English?
In future is usually OK, but either would work so I've changed it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found a few more, too. All fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 07:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Aaroncrick TALK 03:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "... overwhelmed by the fast bowler Jack Gregory."—Is the needed?
Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hammond worked on his batting technique there with former county cricketers John Tunnicliffe and George Dennett..."—Sounds clunky. Possibly move there to the start of the sentence? Still not sure if it sounds too good, however.
Re-worded, and took out the part about he credited them with improving his batting so it sounds a bit less clunky.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Given an extended run in the Gloucestershire team at the start of the 1922 season..."—Can we reword so that we don't use the before Gloucestershire?
Done.--Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't think we used a hypen for leg spin?
Slipped through! Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After some appearances in the reserves, he made four appearances for the first team that season."—Repitition.
  • "In the 1922–23 season, he played ten times and a further four times in 1923–24."—More repitition.
  • "His usual position was on the right wing."—What? Can we introduce a link for right wing?
  • "Hampshire County Cricket Club".—Why can't we just say Hampshire?
  • "He finished the season with an average of 30.21 and supplemented his batting with 29 wickets, a record he improved in 1925 with 1,818 runs and an average of 34.30 and 68 wickets at an average of just under 30, more than doubling his career aggregate of wickets."—Too long. Can we perhaps break it up a bit?
  • "... repeatedly hooking the short bowling of Australian Test bowler Ted McDonald."—Does short-pitched sound better?
  • "... though he missed the entire 1926 cricket season."—Why do we need to mention cricket?
I have copyedited to address the above points.—DCGeist (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again!! --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He again hooked McDonald effectively, at one point hitting five consecutive fours."—Makes it sound like he hit him for five hooks in a row; surely not?
Yes, he did!--Sarastro1 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we used capitals for, First Test, Second Test and so on?
It does appear that the style you describe currently predominates in Wikipedia cricket articles, though it is by no means applied uniformly. I am opposed to it. Trends in English style internationally for the past several decades have been away from such capitalization, which appears superfluous. My informal Google Book Search survey of English-language books on cricket published around the world in the past decade shows a strong, though not uniform, preference for lowercasing first, second, etc.—DCGeist (talk) 00:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to agree, and unless anyone has a big problem with "first Test", I'd prefer to leave it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some MOS attention is needed, and there's too much here I don't understand; could you locate someone who doesn't speak Cricket to run through? For example, I have no idea what this sentence means or why "innings" is plural here.

He played five matches without passing 32 in an innings at a batting average of under ten.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The cricket term "innings", which is roughly parallel to the baseball term "inning" (though a cricket innings can last longer than an entire baseball game), always ends with an s, whether the construction is plural or singular.
I may be too familiar with cricket to perceive where more explanation of the game's basic rules and terminology is necessary, but the article does not strike me as any more obscure than the several cricket—and, for that matter, baseball—articles that have achieved FA status in the past year. Looking at some recent examples: The same nominator's Douglas Jardine, passed in June, and Wilfred Rhodes, passed in May, are pitched (er, bowled?) at the same level. YellowMonkey's Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (May) and First Test, 1948 Ashes series (April) hardly seem more accessible to the cricket neophyte.—DCGeist (talk) 20:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since I speak baseball, and I don't speak cricket, I perhaps don't see issues in baseball articles, but do see them in cricket. Also, otherstuffexists and all that ... now I understand innings, but in the sentence above, "32" *what*? I can't follow most of the cricket articles, but even the delegate has to delegate something-- I delegate image policy and cricket :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be 32 runs—a respectable but far from impressive score for a batsman in an innings. Think of cricket as baseball on steroids (oh, wait, baseball was on steroids...) Think of cricket as baseball designed for an aristocratic leisure class that could afford to sit around all day for four or five days at a stretch nibbling on watercress sandwiches and consuming vast quantities of alcohol.—DCGeist (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the sentence make more sense to the non-initiated, then, if it said "32 runs"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.—DCGeist (talk) 20:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like y'all answered all my dumb queries, and I learned a thing or two (not likely it will stick, though :) I'll promote, but the article still needs a WP:PUNC logical punctuation review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wally_Hammond/archive2&oldid=1089082976"