Wikipedia:Peer review/Wilfred Rhodes/archive1

Wilfred Rhodes

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to take it to FAR. I'm particularly interested in improving the quality of the prose as I feel it drags in places.

Thanks, Sarastro1 (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a long article, and the review will be spread over time. First instalment soon. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: An impressive effort. Here are a few initial points before I get to the prose:-

• Alt text required on all images

I will work on this very soon, but see below. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sources: the listed books are all good, but I am surprised that you have not consulted any of the Yorkshire CCC histories that are available (at least three relatively recent ones). And what about the long Wisden obituary from 1974 - presumably that is online? There is also a tiny vignette in the History of Harrow School, for which I can give you text and references if you're interested.

The Harrow stuff would be great. I haven't got access to the Yorkshire histories, unfortunately, otherwise I would use them. The obituary is referenced in there quite a lot, should I add it to the bibliography? --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've posted the Harrow stuff to your talkpage. I don't think that a biography of so characteristic a Yorkshire cricketer as Rhodes can be considered as based on the best sources without the use of at least one county history. Two of these were published in 1989: Derek Hodgson's Official History of Yorkshire CCC and Tony Woodhouse's The History of Yorkshire CCC. I'd recommend the latter; if you are in the UK, either should be available via inter-library loans. They may be more difficult to access otherwise. I don't see the references to the 1974 obituary - can you point them out? Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ref 18 is to the obituary in the online Wisden archive (it was by Cardus). Re county history, I believe one of the county histories may be available in a local library but it may be some time before I can get hold of it.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Refered to the Woodhouse history. Not much in that isn't just extra detail which would make the article even longer. Added some extra info and added book to bibliography. May add some refs to his position in national averages (when he came top in bowling) from the book. --Sarastro1 (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Images: both photographs require source and publication information. You can't rely on a "source unknown" statement; the pictures must be traceable to a reliable source. Likewise, without publication information how can you justify a licence that says they were published before 1923?

The images weren't added by me, I'm afraid so I don't know about them. I have seen them in other publications, but I've no idea where they are from. I have no facilities for scanning pictures myself, either. If they are dubious, would it be better to remove them completely? Until this is sorted, I won't add alt text, just in case.--Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The main thing to establish is that these photos were published before 1923, otherwise their PD licences will be challenged. Certainly the group photo has been published many times, but we need to tie both pictures to a pre-1923 publication. I wonder if any of the Wikipedia cricket community can help with this? Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I will ask if anyone knows.--Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• A few points on the article's general structure:-
  • Subsection 1.1 would be better as "Professional club cricketer"

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Section 3 heading should specify which war

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• • More generally, it seems odd that you have not separated out his Test career from his county career. This leaves one having to search for details of his international career. Most of the cricketer biographies that have made FA (all Australians as far as I see) have separated out Test match information.

As far as I can tell (looking at Loxton, Barnes, O'Reilly, Ponsford and Trumble) other FA biographies follow a chronological order, with Test appearances put in between domestic cricket without much separation. For an English cricketer from this time, there was far, far more county cricket than Shield cricket for an Australia, so there is more to say about Rhodes than, say, Trumble. With his Tests quite spread out over time, I believed it was better to follow this approach to give his Tests some context, such as his gradual transformation to a batsman which explains his lessening success as a bowler. Talking about his Test career in the 20s would not make much sense without domestic cricket. However, would it make the article clearer if the Tests were made more distinct? E.g. in an international season, do any domestic cricket first and then add the Tests after in a new paragraph? I'm open to suggestions, but don't feel a separate "domestic" and "test" section would make sense for Rhodes. (Sorry, long response!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

In the biogs of older players, the domestics are just put in chrono order, as in those days, the pre-Test tour matches were used for selection trials and all that, whereas today, with so many ODIs, usually there is only one tour match before the Tests and nothing more, often an informal 2-day match where 15 players and subs etc are used. And in those days, a full-time national team player often was also available for 60-70% of the domestic games as well, these days many only play one state/county game a year, or even if they are free, they just skip it. Also in the modern day, the national selectors just choose on what happened in the last Test series, whereas in 1948 Neil Harvey was dropped after scoring 153 in the Fifth Test against India because he did badly in the 12 warm-up matches in England. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 02:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

When discussing a fringe Test player, or a Test player who was fringe at that time in his career, I would definitely go in order, as doing well in a domestic match affects their selection for the next Test. But once they have become a senior, then if they do badly in the domestic matches, they would get picked anyway becuase of their track record in Tests, so in those cases, putting the Tests and other tour/domestic matches in the same season in separate paragraphs side by side won't be jarring. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 03:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

More will follow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful so far, much appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are some comments on the lead. I'm sorry this review is proceeding so slowly, but I will try to pick up the pace over the next few days.

• • "He holds the world records for both the most appearances made (1,110 matches) and the most wickets (4,204) taken in first-class cricket." Needs rearranging: "He holds the world records both for the most appearances made in first-class cricket (1,110 matches), and for the most wickets taken (4,204).

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "...1,000 runs and 100 wickets in a single English cricket season" The word "single" is unnecessary.

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The last two sentences of the first paragraph should be run together, thus "He played for Yorkshire and England into his fifties, and in his final Test in 1930 he was, at 52 years and 165 days, the oldest player who has appeared in a Test match."

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Ungainly beginning to para 2: "Beginning his career for Yorkshire in 1898, he began..." Suggest change "began" to "started"

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Words such as "in due course" need to precede "establishing a reputation as one of the best bowlers in the world."

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "By the First World War he had improved his batting to the same extent." He had indeed improved his batting, but not to the extent of being considered to be one of the best batsmen in the world, so I'd delete the words "to the same extent".

Reworded --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Continuing:

• Last sentence of lead: A bit telescopic and abrupt; he was coaching at Harrow in the early 1930s but was not fully blind until the late 1940s, and he lived for another 25 years after that. It would also be worth mentioning his honorary MCC membership in the lead - this was a very big deal at the time. So I suggest some extension to the final part of the lead.

Done: is there enough in the article to justify what I said? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Early life and career: I have copyedited this section. I think the preamble should form a separate level 3 subsection, titled (perhaps) "Beginnings"

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Professional club cricketer
  • I have copyedited the first paragraph. I suggest you move the second paragraph to the opening of the next section, which deals with the start of Rhodes's Yorkshire career.

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • In any event the paragraph should not begin with "He". To avoid a third successive paragraph starting with "Rhodes" you could reword along the lines "In response to an advertisement, Rhodes applied..." etc

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Beginning as a bowler
  • I know "friendly matches" is good cricket parlance, but for the uninitiated it might be better to say "unofficial matches".

I've put both, if that's OK. I feel it needs "friendly match" in there for those who do know the term or it might look like some break-away, Packer style match! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "The result of this was that he made his first-class debut..." Wouldn't it be better to amplify by saying something like: "His performances in these matches led to his first-class debut..." - and say who he was playing for?

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "In his second match, against Somerset,..." This was presumably his County Championship debut, which should be noted and a date given.

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "Springing to fame" is a once-off action; you don't do it "throughout" a season, so I'd alter the sentence beginning to: "In the 1898 season..."

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • To avoid confusion you should not use the word "wicket" to describe the pitch, or you get problematic sentences like: "In 1899 he took 179 wickets at an average of 17.10 in a reasonably dry season with fewer wickets to suit his bowling." I have changed a couple of these to "pitches", but I suggest you go through the article and look for other possible instances.

Not done yet, but I will check for this. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "In this first test he opened the bowling, took seven wickets and was described by Wisden as bowling “steady and well” on the first day." This doesn't really do justice to the occasion of Rhodes's Test debut. You could mention: that as well as Grace his team-mates included Fry, Ranjitsinhji, and George Hirst (by the way, the team photo caption is wrong - Brockwell, not Hearne, was 12th man); that he opened the English bowling; that his debut bowling performance was 4 for 58 in an Australian total of 252; that his first Test wicket was Monty Noble (he got Noble in the second innings, too). I think the text is worth expanding to include at least some of this information.

Totally agree. Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I notice that curly quote marks are being used. These should all be changed to "..." - I've done a couple.

I hope it was just a lapse from something my computer did when I copied something, but I'll keep an eye out as I go over the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • I think you should mention that his 7/17 in the first 1902 Test was in an Australian total of 36 - worth repeating any time.

:) Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "In a well-known story..." Well known to cricket historians, but a general encyclopedia article needs to explain. Cardus tells the story - I remember reading it in his autobiography. Was he the originator? Whether or not this is so, a source should be indicated.

Rephrased the "well-known story" which I didn't really like in the end. At the moment, my only source says that there was a story but not where it comes from. Not too sure what the original source was, haven't read the Cardus autobiography, and if it was a Cardus story, he would have said so before, probably. He wrote at length about the 4th and 5th Tests of 1902. Do you know where he wrote it? On a slightly related point, do you know where the stories about MacLaren and Hawke clashing over selection ("Look what they've sent me!") comes from? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

The "We'll get them in singles" story is told on p. 157 of my extremely tatty 1949 copy of the Cardus' autobiography (my grandad's, I think, pub. William Collins). Cardus says "the story goes that..." so it doesn't sound like he's the originator, but you can cite it to there if you want. I don't know the other story - not referring to the Oval 1902 match, surely? The England side looks pretty strong there! Brianboulton (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Added ref, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Another review slice: (I have continued to copyedit)

• From all-rounder to specialist batsman
  • "Warner selected Rhodes when he captained the MCC tour of Australia in 1903–04." You need to explain who "Warner" was. Were touring captains also sole selectors? If so, this needs to be explained. too.

Clarified, although I think it is a bit vague how it worked at this distance. I think Warner was claiming sole credit in his book. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Too many quotations of straightforward expressions in the first paragraph. The Ranji quote is OK, but thereafter I suggest you remove the quote marks from "the mainstay of the team (everyday phraseology) and slightly paraphrase the other two.

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • The partnership with Foster was a 10th wicket Test record, and remained so for about 70 years. This should be mentioned.

Done. Still England record. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • You also need to explain the nature of the 15 for 124 Test record (best match bowling analysis in a Test?)

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "...and the break up of the successful Yorkshire team of 1900 to 1902." Seems rather a short period in which to establish a successful team - you'd expect a decade or so. Apart from that, you need to explain why the break-up of the Yorkshire team affected Rhodes's bowling. You should add something like: "...meant that the county relied increasingly on Rhodes's batting.

I think I've covered this; not quite sure I agree with Rogerson's reasoning here, but don't want to just include the reasons I agree with. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • It's a bit confusing to find, having just read that Rhodes was a declining bowler after the 1903-04 tour, that in 1905 he was considered "at the top of his form" as a bowler–especially when you read the last sentence of this paragraph which implies something else again.

The "top of his form" referred to one game where Australia were bowled out easily. I've clarified this. Hopefully, it now shows that he was not as effective overall but capable of good spells. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • England won the 1905 series 2–0 not 3–0

Fixed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • "...and it seems that it was around this time that he was decided upon as the batsman who would replace John Tunnicliffe..." Whose view ("it seems that") is being expressed here?

Took out "it seems that". Does it still need clarifying? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Ungrammatical: "Passing 2,000 runs for the first time, Sidney Rogerson believed that this was the season that "the days of his apprenticeship in batsmanship were ending". Needs to read something like "Sidney Rogerson believes that by passing 2,000 runs for the first time, Rhodes was ending the days of his batting apprenticeship". The sentence needs to be split at this point, to avoid becoming overlong

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• • A general prose problem which I have hinted at before: a tendency to put in quotes too many short unmemorable phrases. In this paragraph we have "Rhodes alone bowled well" and "batting admirably"; neither of these are worthy of quotation marks, which should be reserved for more vivid phrases or where there is a specific need to report verbatim. I'd recommend a check through the article to deal with other instances of this.

Done as much as I could. Will check for more later. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We're approaching halfway through now. I will need to break off for a couple of days to attend to other pressing chores, but I'll be back. Brianboulton (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

More stuff

• Opening batsman (I have copyedited quite heavily)
  • "However, Rhodes received only £750 from the match, and even when Yorkshire launched an appeal to boost the total which raised it to £2,200," The figures sound low in 2010, but their present-day equivalents, in terms of purchase power, are respectively £57,000 and £167,000 (per Measuringworth.com) This rather affects the use of "however", "only" and "even" in the above sentence. Also, I understand that Hirst's 1904 benfit was a record. I don't see any point in the Haigh comparison. The whole sentence needs recasting along these lines: "In 1911, when Yorkshire finished seventh in the County Championship, Rhodes was given a benefit match against Lancashire from which he received £750 (around £57,000 in 2010). After Yorkshire launched an appeal, the total was boosted to £2,200 (around £167,000 in 2010), still considerably less than the record benefit total of £3,703 raised for George Hirst in 1904." You need to cite Measuringworth.com for the equivalent values, and to find a source for the Hirst total (Wisden has it) if this is not in your existing citation.

Hirst is covered by existing citation. Have altered sentence as you recommended. However, Measuringworth.com will not give a url which gives the equivalent amounts, it is just a "results" page with no data. I have cited the page with an explanation of how it works and with the calculator. Is this good enough for a source, or is there another way to do it? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I usually cite to this page. The links are there if people want to examine the theory. Brianboulton (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Batting success in Australia (again I have copyedit heavily)
  • "...a Test record at the time" (Hobbs/Rhodes opening stand) What was the nature of the record?

Done and added more info about it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Should "a remarkable display of careful batting" be in quotes?

Done (Got carried away taking out unneccesary quotation marks!) --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I have inserted references to the results of the Tests, which seems necessary. I imagine these are covered by existing citations.

Yes. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Triangular tournament (still copyediting)
  • The Wisden quote beginning "a splendid pair" is far too long to make the simple point (already made a couple of sections ago) that Hobbs and Rhodes had a good understanding when running between the wickets. I would shorten this considerably.

Done. Just general comments about how good they were. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I have divided the section, since only the first paragraph relates to the Triangular Tournament. I have called the new subsection "Last pre-war seasons" but feel free to replace this if you have a better idea.

Your heading is fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Last pre-war seasons
  • I think that the 1000-run/100 wicket Test double was quite rare at that time. Do we know how many players, and specifically how many England players, had done this previously? I think the significance of the feat should be noted.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Will continue later Brianboulton (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A bit more

• Returning to bowling (the copyedits continue)
  • The heading implies that Rhodes had given up bowling before the war. In fact, as your figures show, he took 118 wickets in the 1914 season and 86 in the season before that. So the phrasing that he "made a surprising and successful return as a bowler" is not really warranted by the facts, and I have removed it. The facts are that, before the war, Rhodes virtually ceased as a bowler at international level, but continued bowling in domestic cricket, though to a reduced extent due to his concentrating more on his batting. After the war he made bowling his first priority and was very successful, at least in county matches. The section covers a great deal more than Rhodes's "return to bowling", not least the 1920-21 Australian tour which occupies about 75% of the section. The heading should reflect this.

Fair enough, but I'm not too sure what it should be! I feel it should reflect his renewed emphasis on bowling rather than the 20-21 tour as this was a major change when compared to before the war: he may have taken wickets but was considered a change bowler and was not the main strike bowler for Yorkshire. After the war, he was almost the last one standing and pretty much headed the English bowling averages for two or three seasons. He continued as a leading bowler for the rest of his career. This is why I chose that heading. In terms of his international career, the Ashes tour was a strange one as he did very little but it was not the end of his Test career. More like the end of his regular international career. So to cut a long story short, if the heading needs changing, should I go for "1920-21 tour to Australia" which neglects his change of emphasis, or "Leading bowler again" or words like that? Suggestions appreciated! --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion – which I have implemented but feel free to change if you don't like it – is to rename the first paragraph "Leading bowler again" and to create a new heading "Australian tour 1920–21" for the remainder of the section. That seems to work. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • First sentence: the suggestion that the 2-day match experiment was undertaken simply because "no-one was sure how popular county cricket would be" comes from where? This article gives more details of the reasoning behind the experiment, and I am sure that Wisden 1920 has even more to say.

This comment is referenced from the 1920 Wisden editor's comments. The article from cricinfo doesn't really explain why it happened other than saying that English administrators like to tinker with the Championship. The idea that they were afraid no-one was interested tallies with what I've seen elsewhere; I'll try to dig out another ref. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I recommend you cut the information about Rhodes's supposed disagreement with Toone. It's uninformative, and an unnecessary distraction in what is already a very long article

I've taken out the financial disagreement but left in Toone's comment at the end of the tour as I think it's a good judgement on the tour. Also, Toone was involved in the (probable) plan to try to oust Rhodes from the Yorkshire team so that Sutcliffe could take over as captain. If you think that this comment also needs to come out , I'll remove it too. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's OK as it is. Brianboulton (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Likewise "but it was rumoured that there may have been a problem between Rhodes and Douglas." This is a loose end, unless you are able to indicate what the "problem" might have been. I don't think myself that it adds anything worthwhile, so I'd remove it.

Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Almost there...

• Senior professional: this section is too long and is overdetailed. Here are ways of reducing it:-
  • Too many illustrative stories all making the same point - that as senior pro Rhodes often took charge on the field over the head of his captain. This is clear after the sentence about Lupton deferring to Rhodes and Robinson, and most of the stories are legens rather than facts. This article is pretty long and needs to be cut down, so I'd excise everything between "Emmott Robinson" and the sentence beginning "However biographer Sidney Rogerson..."

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • For the same reason I would cut out everything from "On the other hand, Geoffrey Wilson..." to the sentence beginning "Beverley Lyon..."

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Recalled to the Oval
  • There's an unwelcome lapse into "cricketspeak" with: "Rhodes had only bowled to Woodfull once before, bowling him second ball with an arm ball. Now, Rhodes bowled two maiden overs to Woodfull before making him play on with an identical ball. Apart from the specialist terms ("arm ball", "maiden overs", "play on") this is unnecessarily detailed. Again, this section is overlong and will need cutting down. I suggest you cut out the details and just say that Rhodes's victims were Woodfull and Arthur Richardson.

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I have removed other technical terms, e.g. "made the ball turn", "caught at slip" etc.
  • I have split this section, since only the first half is about the Oval, 1926.
  • Measuringworth estimates that £1,821 in 1927 has a current purchasing power of over £80,000.

Cited --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "...not least prompted by his wife's suspicions of a plot." Unattributed, probably best withdrawn

Ref in wrong place, this is part of the ref I had from Rogerson. So it is attributable. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "...with some believing that Rhodes should have been appointed captain." Some who? Players, writers, members, the general public?

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Could you extend the final Wisden tribute a bit? It reads rather limply at present.

Not too sure how. The Wisden tribute just says this then talks how he went from bowler to batsman and back again. Any suggestions? I agree its not a good finish.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Final comments

• Style and personality
  • What is the "Wilfred Rhodes Career Batting Performance" chart actually showing? What are the red bars, what is the blue line? Is this related to his whole career or his Test career? Also, as he was as much a bowler as batsman, why is there no equivalent chart for his bowling career?

Added explanation of lines and colours. Not sure why there's no bowler equivalent, it just seems to be standard on the cricket project. I'll ask and see what is said.--Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "Wisden, in Rhodes's obituary..." Name the writer, not "Wisden"

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "He was an expert at bowling to his field so that the batsmen hit the ball where he, the bowler, wanted it." Incomprehensible to those without a knowledge of cricket. Suggest: "When bowling he was able to force batsmen to hit the ball to places where he had positioned his fieldsmen" - or something like that.

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "commanded very sharp spin" is equally obscure to non-cricketers (and presumably should be in quotes) Suggest replace with "In his early years as a bowler Rhodes was able to spin the ball very sharply"

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Overdetailing, labouring the point – suggest you cut out everything between "batsmens' weaknesses" and "He was also considered..."

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Personal life
  • Too much small detail for an encyclopedia article. Suggest delete everything between "Bog Hall, near Kirkheaton" and "On 25 August 1902...". Also delete the trivia about the telegram on the field of play.

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Whose phrasing is "lacking geneosity"? Should it not be in quotes?

Done --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's all the specific points, but I would recommend you consider each of the following carefully:-

• Length: At 9,200 words the article is too long. In my review I have recommended cuts that total about 500 words. You should go through and see if you can cut out at least another 500 – try and get the total below 8,000 if you can. Look for instances where you have given two or more examples where one will do. Look for trivial information that doesn't really add anything to the article.
• Use of quotes: I have noticed that some of the phrases sounds as though they come directly from a book or other source, but it's not in quotation marks; I have drawn attention to one or two instances of this. I suggest you go through carefully and deal with any other cases.
• Images: Make sure that any images you use were published before 1923 to ensure teir PD status. I'm pretty certain that both the current images were, but we do need publication details. Have you asked other cricketing editors if they can help with this information, or whether they can supply alternatives?

I've asked about the images but no response yet. I may approach a few individuals to see if they can help. I'll do alttext as soon as it's sorted. I'll go through the article again over the next few days and see if I can shorten it and tidy up the quotes. I should also be able to get hold of the Yorkshire CCC histories in the next day or two as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And thank you for all your assistance with this, you've been a huge help. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)