Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 4 April 2019 [1].

Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most bizarre incidents in the history of cricket occurred in 1979, when Somerset captain Brian Rose chose to declare his team's innings after one over, manipulating a loophole in the rules which meant they couldn't suffer a heavy defeat and be knocked out of the competition. Needless to say, it didn't go down well ("It's not cricket!) and Somerset were subsequently thrown out of the competition. I think this is a really interesting subject for an article, and hopefully you'll agree. It's been subject of both a Good article review and a Peer review, and now I submit it for your thoughts. Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Dweller

Smashing article. Lack of illustration is a shame. Could [[:]] help? Personally, I'd consider splitting the last section into what happened in the immediate aftermath and therafter. There are also parallels to this in other sports, might be worth thinking about how to handle them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: Thanks, I've split the final section as suggested, though I struggled with the headings. Hopefully what I've settled on works? I'm trying to find an image; unfortunately the fair-use image rules wouldn't allow us to use that one of Atkinson. I'm hoping to get a free image of Brian Rose, which would work well, but we'll see how I do. Otherwise, like Sarastro suggests below, I'll probably stick one of the ground in. Are there are parallels that particularly spring to mind for you? Harrias talk 11:14, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a good way forward on the photos. Try this Barbados_4–2_Grenada_(1994_Caribbean_Cup_qualification). Probably POV to include in article but maybe see also? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't included a specific link to that, as reading around the site a bit (getting caught in a "Wiki-black hole") I've come across so many different occasions. I have however added a link to Match fixing in a new See also section, which I think works better. Harrias talk 21:52, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers; the article was in good shape then, and has since got better with some excellent stylistic polishing. I think the article meets the FA criteria. George Orwell, who was famously faddy about double negatives, might have boggled at "not dissimilar" but I think it's OK. No other drafting points this time round and I am happy to support its promotion. Tim riley talk 23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words Tim; the double negative has been removed now through other copy-edit work. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
...and that he thought there would be repercussions if they went ahead [with the plan] - bracketed bit can be dropped without losing meaning
Rose defended his actions, claiming that he "had no alternative", - be good if dequoted, such as "Rose defended his actions, claiming that he had no other option,"

otherwise a good read and fulfilling FA criteria. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber:, both suggestions have now been made, thanks for having a look. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The intro you've written here sounds better than lead section. The article is about an incident, but the lead starts directly with details without introducing the incident.
    @AhmadLX: I've reworked the lead a little bit, how is it now? Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are so many quotes, 20 I could count. Many of them, like "improper", "wholly indefensible", "had no alternative", "support the team whatever their decision", are unnecessary and can be described without quotes.
    Trimmed. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath section discusses change of laws of the game after this incident and other similar incidents. They are important but are absent from the lead, which should be brief representation of all important details of the article.
    Added the law change at the moment, but I will probably rewrite the lead completely. I just need to reset my head on it at the moment, as I'm too zoned-in on what's there right now. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not dissimilar" suggests that the two incidents weren't very similar either. But the details show they were very similar. AhmadLX (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Last point has been addressed by other copy-editing, I'm looking to address the rest. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead seems good to me now, other points addressed; Support. AhmadLX (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sarastro: I'm recusing as coordinator as I can't resist this one and I've been promising to look at it for ages. I've copy-edited but as usual feel free to revert anything. Just a few points to consider, none of them too crucial. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm very uncomfortable using Cricket Country as a source. It will pass RS comfortably enough but I'm not sure it's high quality enough for FA; the author of that article also has an unfortunate habit of basing his writing on wikipedia articles or match reports from other sources. I suspect most of what he writes is available elsewhere, and it may be better sticking to more established sources.
    I assume that it was just inferred from the scorecard, given that it isn't that hard to work out. That said, I was uncomfortable basing part of the match report on the scorecard alone. I've added the scorecard as a supporting reference alongside Cricket Country, how do you feel about that? Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In all honesty, I think you would be perfectly justified in just using the scorecard. That's all Cricket Country has done. I'd still prefer it removed altogether and just using the scorecard as I don't consider it a high enough quality source. Especially as it's just based on the scorecard. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, removed. Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'm not sure we can really make a link between this and the underarm incident. I realise that Martin Williamson makes the same link in his article, but I don't think the two events are really comparable. If you wanted similar incidents, there were a few incidents in the 1930 Championship where Yorkshire similarly bent the rules, led astray by Bev Lyon... but without an article making this link explicit, I don't think we can do it without a bit of OR.
    Honestly, I disagree. As I draw upon in the article, both Arlott and Frith actively discuss a hope that this incident would be the end of captains putting winning ahead of the spirit of the game, and it is (to me) a pretty clear parallel. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Between you and Ian, I seem to be horribly outnumbered here. The sources agree, so it's fine to keep in. I just think that it's a real stretch to connect them as Martin Williamson does. It's a shame there's nothing that connects some of these unsporting incidents a little more directly. There's probably something out there somewhere, but I don't know of anything. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with a few points above: an image or two would be nice. Maybe one of the ground? But I doubt we could really justify using an non free images as there isn't really one person with whom this is associated.
    I agree that we can't use a non-free image. I would ideally like one of Brian Rose; I'm in the process of sounding out a couple of possible sources, but we'll see what comes of that. I'm not against a picture of the ground, but the oldest image we have is from 2006, which is not going to reflect the look of the ground in 1979 particularly well. Harrias talk 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be OK. Presumably the pavilion is the same? Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we could maybe expand the lead slightly; and perhaps the quotes could be trimmed as we don't really need them all.
    Trimmed some quotes out, still need to work on the lead properly. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does The Cricketer have any opinion on this? We quote from it a little, but I wonder if it passes judgement at all?
    Added a little. Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it extraordinary that more people haven't written about this, given that some of the participants in the game aren't exactly shy in expressing opinions. But I've looked, and there's nothing. Other than the issues noted here, the sourcing is otherwise impeccable.
    I did find a bit more in Roebuck's autobiography actually, though it contradicted some of what I already had. I've incorporated this, and hopefully addressed the contradiction suitably? Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Why am I not surprised that he tried to claim the credit for the idea? But that's perfect. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source formatting is absolutely fine Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once these little points have been looked at, I'm more than happy to support. When I've a little more time, I'll do a spot check of sources too. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Sarastro1: Thanks for taking a look. Quick question for you; both ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive list Holder as bowling a maiden over, but there is a no-ball listed. My understanding is that a no-ball negates it from being a maiden? Clearly I have to follow the sources irrespective, but it strikes me as odd? (Maybe it was a more recent change that extras count against the bowler in this way?) Harrias talk 11:50, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't remember when exactly the rule changed, but no balls and wides weren't added to the runs conceded by a bowler until after this, some time in the 80s I think. It meant that you could bowl a maiden over with wides and no balls in it. Ping me when you've finished with the lead. Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sarastro1: Interesting stuff, every day is a school day! I've rewritten the lead slightly to add a bit more in, and hopefully address things in a better manner. Harrias talk 11:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ian -- Like Sarastro, I just have to recuse as coord, good thing there's three of us! At this stage I've looked through the article once without copyediting, and it read quite well, but I'll go through again as soon as I can and ce where I think it'll help.

  • My first point though is that I have a different perspective to my friend and colleague Sarastro re. the underarm incident -- perhaps it's because I'm an Aussie but even before I finished the lead I was comparing the two, and wondering if and when it'd be mentioned. I haven't looked at the referencing yet but my feeling is that if it can be reliably sourced then it's fair to put it in. Anyway I'll go through the article in detail when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I know when I'm beaten! Sarastro (talk) 13:12, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walked through again now, copyediting as I went -- I eliminated the "improper" quote mentioned above, and "not dissimilar", and of course am happy to discuss my edits if any concerns. I didn't find the article too quote-heavy, the main thing for me is that those used are attributed in-line, which I believe they are.
  • Sourcing-wise, I think in general I'll be happy to defer to Sarastro and others more expert than I re. cricket articles. I did spotcheck the two citations related to the underarm incident, and the first at least seems to buttress my contention that it's reasonable to mention it here (assuming Williamson is considered a reliable source naturally) as he discusses both in the one article.
  • Summarising, I'll park things here for now and try to return if the prose changes in response to other reviewers' suggestions, but overall it still looks pretty good to me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Just reviewing for readiness here—are there any further remarks from you or do you plan to revisit? --Laser brain (talk) 15:16, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Andy -- in part I was waiting to see if we got consensus about a new name for the article but I think that may have petered out; I'll give it the once over again now that a few other reviewers have had their say and see where we come out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I know how tough it is on a nominator when the changes you make on one reviewer's advice are disagreeable to another reviewer but unfortunately that's the case here. I found the original lead quite adequate, setting the scene in the first sentence or two and then telling us the controversy, rather than jumping right in as we do now. Further, I notice the sentence To avoid suffering a heavy defeat that could eliminate them, Rose worked out... has been changed to the passive it was worked out. We also have In contrast, Viv Richards, Joel Garner and Ian Botham were all very vocal in their support ... -- unless the cited source highlights the situation, I would call In contrast editorialising. I'm happy to see some quote fragments paraphrased, but apart from that I'm afraid it looks like one step forward and two steps back since I last read the article. Now I could have a go at tweaking the last-mentioned points but I think we need to find consensus re. the lead first (let alone the article title, if that is still under consideration). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AhmadLX: Any chance you could take a look at Ian Rose's comments and see if we can find a middle ground? It seems silly for me to be too reactionary, given that you hold pretty opposing points, and without some compromise down the middle, I'm unlikely to please you both. Harrias talk 10:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I respectfully disagree with Ian regarding the first point. He sees it subjectively; he knows the detail already and as such sees first para as unnecessary stuff. Casual reader, however, would come to the article knowing little in advance. Article title is not descriptive, so the reader would expect to know the topic from intro sentence. From original version of the lead, it is unclear what the article is about, unless you are halfway through the lead. To me, the current version of the lead appears to be logical summary of the article: introduction & importance is established in the first para, detail in the second, aftermath in the third. I have no problem with other points he mentions. Thank you. AhmadLX (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Any advice on how I can proceed? Harrias talk 10:47, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I've recused coord duties here, I'm speaking purely as a reviewer. First of all, I'm afraid Ahmad has assumed wrongly -- I'd never heard of this incident before reading the article and hence, rather than seeing it subjectively, I'm the casual reader of which they speak, which is precisely why I believe the original lead that set the scene and then described the controversy was the better one. As to how to proceed, perhaps we could ask the other reviewers to weigh in re. the lead's form. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: Seems we are stuck here. Okay then, you can restore original lead if you want. I won't change my support. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Ahmad, that's very gracious -- Harrias, did you want to act on this re. the lead? I'm happy to tweak those points in the main body that I highlighted on 19 March... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. Work has been a nightmare this week, but I'll take a look at this later today. I am still alive! Harrias talk 11:27, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Okay, I've reverted the lead back to more or less its original form. I've tinkered a little bit, which goes only with the "Rose worked out..." to "it was worked out" switch. Basically, reading around the sources a bit more, I realised that it wasn't clear that it was Rose who came up with the plan, so I had to soften the language slightly. I removed "In contrast" as it was superfluous anyway. Harrias talk 20:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Any follow-up comments on the latest revisions? --Laser brain (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for the ping Andy -- I've tweaked a little but I believe my comments have been dealt with so ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 213.205.240.200

This article is all about an incident, so IMO the title should reflect that; something like Worcestershire v Somerset Incident or Worcestershire v Somerset Cricket Incident or ODI Declaration Incident Somerset? Somerset declaration controversy sounds cool ;)AhmadLX (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If further disambiguation is considered necessary (I'm not convinced that it is) then I would suggest Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979 Benson & Hedges Cup. I am personally not a fan of titles such as "xxx controversy", but I'm generally happy to follow any consensus. Harrias talk 18:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]
  • Ref 8 shows a subscription template, but the Cricketer article is available from the link. The same applies to ref 17.
  • Ref 14 supports the statement: "The same thing happened in Watford, where Glamorgan and the Minor Counties were due to play." A minor issue is that play did actually start at Watford, where four balls were bowled, whereas "The same thing happened" implies that rain prevented any play at all. More to the point, however, is the irrelevance of the statement. Unless I'm missing something, what happened at Watford had no bearing on the Worcs v Somerset game, and the detail appears to be mere padding.
    • Had that game gone ahead with a result, Somerset would have had a better idea of what result they would need. It's tangential, but the suggestion across the sources is that the fact that Glamorgan could secure a big win against the Minor Counties was on the players' minds. In terms of it being "The same thing"; both games had no play on 23 May, the four balls bowled were on the second day, but I agree that the source provided does not support this; I will find an alternative. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22: The Daily Mail is not considered to be a high quality, reliable source.

Spotchecking reveals no issues. With the exception of the DM the sources meet the standards criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianboulton: Thanks; fixed two, need to check the other. Harrias talk 11:07, 14 March 2019 (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/Worcestershire_v_Somerset,_1979/archive1&oldid=1138475792"