Wikipedia:Peer review/Yorkshire captaincy crisis of 1927/archive1
| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is currently a good article and I would like to see what could be done to take it to FA. I'm not sure it's detailed enough in places and I'm particularly interested in how good the prose is, and how easy it is for the non-cricketer.
Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Note: I have copyedited the lead, will provide more comments soon. My chief problem is accepting that this mild kerfuffle over the appointment of a professional captain should be described as a "crisis", which suggests something rather more critical. Brianboulton (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Review:
First, I am concerned about the use of the word "crisis" in the title. A crisis is a major event; in cricketing terms the Bodyline affair of 1932-33 might be described as a crisis, as might the D'Oliviera affair, or Kerry Packer's World Series. All of these had impact across the whole game, and brought significant changes. The Yorkshire captaincy business was a trifle by comparison; I suggest you rename to "Yorkshire captaincy affair of 1927".
There are numerous prose problems. I have resolved those in the lead by a heavy copyedit, but I really think the rest needs going over very carefully before there is any thought of nominating this as a FAC. Here are some examples from the "Backgoubd" section; I have not looked further:-
- In the first line we have "county cricket" and "County Cricket"
- "Amateurs in cricket were almost always from a privileged background and professionals were mainly from a working class background." **"almost always" is too strong. You could say "generally" or "usually".
- You should also say "privileged backgrounds" rather than "a privileged background"
- "while" is a better connector than "and", becaus a comparison is being made.
- Likewise, "working class backgrounds", but to avoid repetition it might be better to say "from the working classes". Thus the sentence becomes: ""Amateurs in cricket were usually from privileged backgrounds, while professionals were mainly from the working classes."
- "With the game being organised" → "As the game was organised..."
- The wording "and was perceived as important" seems entirely unnecessary.
- "As a result, county and Test captains were chosen from the privileged, amateur background" Avoid repetition of the "privileged background" phrase,and other verbosity, by running this sentence into the next, thus: "As a result, county and Test captains were chosen from the ranks of the amateurs,[3][4] in the belief that, free from worries about their livelihood, they made better captains."
- The sentence "They were in the side simply to captain it" is not necessary; the point is clearly made by now.
- Lord Hawke's remarks were made five years after the "crisis". It would be better to defer them until the "Aftermath" section, as a prelude to Sellars's appointment. So in this paragraph I would delete everything between "worth a place in the team" and "Much of Yorkshire's success in the 1920s"
There is more prose work necesary in this section and in the rest of the article, though I don't have time for it, Can I just highlight a few further points for your attention?
- For aesthetic reasons it may be advisable to move the Hawke image to the lead.
- You may have problems over the Sutcliffe image. I know the description says it was taken in 1921, but what is the evidence for this? Even if the date is right, unless you can demonstrate that it was published before 1923, you cannot use it. The present licencing is nonsense. "Yorkshire County Cricket Club" is not the author; the claim of author's life plus 70 years can't be made when we don't know who the photographer is, nor can we assume that this unknown person must have died before 1940.
- Lupton was 46, not 48, when he became captain.
I'm sorry I can't offer more for the moment but hope my efforts have been helpful. Brianboulton (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)