Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive2
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 Karanacs 21:07, 14 July 2009 [1].
Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]
- Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
Second nomination. Issues from last time addressed. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At a drive-by look, there's a lot of citations to CricInfo and CricketArchive. I know nothing about cricket, but can someone confirm they pass WP:RS? Stifle (talk) 11:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well Ealdgyth and everyone else has always passed them. Cricinfo is the world's largest cricket news website and is owned by ESPN and works with Wisden. Leading cricket historians who write for Cricinfo include Gideon Haigh and David Frith, etc. CricketARchive is used for statistical research by professional statisticians like Bill Frindall YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look to be well-written.
- Opening sentence is mostly blue: "Ron Hamence was a member of Donald Bradman's famous [[Australian cricket team in England in 1948|Australian cricket team, which toured England in 1948 and was undefeated in its 34 matches]]." Is it possible to pipe with fewer words? Perhaps just "toured England in 1948"? Should it be "team that" (if Bradman led other such teams to tour, maybe).
- "The MCC fielded seven players who would represent England in the Tests,[27][28][29][30][31][32] and were basically a full strength Test team, while Australia fielded their first-choice team. It was a chance to gain a psychological advantage. Given Hamence's early struggles in the English conditions, which saw him make only 161 runs at 26.83 in his first six innings,[1] while all of Australia's first-choice top six had made centuries,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]". Any chance those whoppers can each be conflated into a single note? Tony (talk) 06:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I will do that YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Changed to "team of 1948" to give indication that the personnel changes over time. Bradman was captain from 1936-38 and 1946-1948 YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. The prose is looking good and the jargon is explained reasonably well for average readers. It is of quite limited scope, but the wealth of information available makes the subarticle appropriate in my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: Although Hamence is notable in hs own right as an Australian Test cricketer, you say in the lead to this article that he was not instrumental in the 1948 team's success. The performance figures which you give confirm this, as does the stuff about being "ground-staff". So why is it justifiable to have a separate article about his 1948 non-exploits? Shouldn't his modest achievements on this tour be merged into his own article? Aside from that issue, the prose has improved a lot since the last FAC, and the elongated reference strings have vanished, which is good. I'm still troubled by one sentence in the lead, though: "Aside from Colin McCool, Hamence was the only squad member..." Why "aside from McCool", as though McCool is unworthy of serious consideration? Why not say "Hamence and Colin McCool were the only squad members..." etc Brianboulton (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the sentence. As to the issue of forking, Hamence played 99 FC matches including 3 Tests and 19 on the Invincibles and this articles has 20k of prose and if the article was eliminated and merged, the content would have to be mostly killed off as we aren't going to have 100k of prose on him. While his contribution was small in comparison to the likes of Lindwall and Morris, in those days, they played 6 days each week and so backup players were required for rotation, Hemence even opened the bowling on occasion to rest Lindwall, and first-class cricketers are inherently notable, and he played in 60% of the matches; many members of leading Champions League teams do not see 60% game time for instance. I guess as articles have been created on the other 16 players who all played in the MCC matches or Tests at least, it would leave an odd man out, and there are certainly RS for Hamence. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are missing my point here. I don't question the right of Hamence or any of the 17 "Invincibles" to have their own biographical articles. What I'm dubious about is the need for all of them to have additional articles dealing with their deeds in 1948. In the case of those – Bradman, Lindwall, Miller for example – who made a stellar contribution to the tour, there might be cass for separate 1948 tour articles as well as their biographies. But for the likes of Hamence, who in your own words contributed modestly to the tour, I think it's over-egging the pudding. I think Hamence's contribution could easily be contained within a section in his biography headed "Hamence in 1948" or some such. However, I am expressing a personal opinion. Aside from thiis issue, this article looks good. Brianboulton (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No I was referring to the subarticle. The only way this would fit into the main article is if I carved it down. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 07:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you are missing my point here. I don't question the right of Hamence or any of the 17 "Invincibles" to have their own biographical articles. What I'm dubious about is the need for all of them to have additional articles dealing with their deeds in 1948. In the case of those – Bradman, Lindwall, Miller for example – who made a stellar contribution to the tour, there might be cass for separate 1948 tour articles as well as their biographies. But for the likes of Hamence, who in your own words contributed modestly to the tour, I think it's over-egging the pudding. I think Hamence's contribution could easily be contained within a section in his biography headed "Hamence in 1948" or some such. However, I am expressing a personal opinion. Aside from thiis issue, this article looks good. Brianboulton (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed the sentence. As to the issue of forking, Hamence played 99 FC matches including 3 Tests and 19 on the Invincibles and this articles has 20k of prose and if the article was eliminated and merged, the content would have to be mostly killed off as we aren't going to have 100k of prose on him. While his contribution was small in comparison to the likes of Lindwall and Morris, in those days, they played 6 days each week and so backup players were required for rotation, Hemence even opened the bowling on occasion to rest Lindwall, and first-class cricketers are inherently notable, and he played in 60% of the matches; many members of leading Champions League teams do not see 60% game time for instance. I guess as articles have been created on the other 16 players who all played in the MCC matches or Tests at least, it would leave an odd man out, and there are certainly RS for Hamence. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – After cleaning up some overlinking and a couple of remaining prose glitches, I think the article is better than when it first came here, and quite a bit better than when I weakly supported at the first FAC; in particular, the creative fix for the reference strings is much appreciated. Even though he doesn't appear to be the most famous member of the team in question, to me there's just enough to justify a seperate article. The match statistics would just be too much in the Hamence article, causing summary style issues. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review: only one self-created chart and it checks out. Jappalang (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – Looks good. From someone who knows practically nothing about Hamence, it's easy to read and understand. Aaroncrick (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]