Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Adelaide leak

Adelaide leak[edit]

This nomination predates the introduction in April 2014 of article-specific subpages for nominations and has been created from the edit history of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the TFAR nomination of the article below. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests). Please do not modify this page unless you are renominating the article at TFAR. For renominations, please add {{collapse top|Previous nomination}} to the top of the discussion and {{collapse bottom}} at the bottom, then complete a new {{TFAR nom}} underneath.

The result was: scheduled for Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 14, 2013 by Bencherlite ^Talk 16:13, 2 January 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Adelaide leak was the revelation to the press of a dressing-room incident during the third cricket Test match of the "Bodyline" series. During the course of play on 14 January 1933, the Australian Test captain Bill Woodfull was struck over the heart by a ball delivered by Harold Larwood. On his return to the dressing room, Woodfull was visited by the England manager Pelham Warner who enquired after Woodfull's health, but to Warner's embarrassment, the latter said he did not want to speak to him owing to England's Bodyline tactics. The matter became public knowledge when someone present leaked the exchange to the press; such leaks were practically unknown at the time. In the immediate aftermath, many people assumed Jack Fingleton, a full-time journalist, was responsible. Fingleton later wrote that Donald Bradman, Australia's star batsman, disclosed the story. Bradman always denied this, and continued to blame Fingleton. Woodfull's earlier public silence on the tactics had been interpreted as approval; the leak was significant in persuading the Australian public that Bodyline was unacceptable. (Full article...)

Two points for 80th anniversary of the incident, one point for promotion over a year ago (February 2011). However, last sports article scheduled is for 22 December, so loses two points (the last cricket article was October 13). So that makes 1 point I think. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good anniversary, and the Dec 22 article is much different from this one.--Chimino (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high quality article and good date relevance. — Cirt (talk) 18:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the above, - not only sports, also press, not really similar, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unique topic, interesting. Montanabw^(talk) 20:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]