Talk:Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

What is a good article?[edit]

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[2]
    (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose);[2] and
    (c) it contains no original research.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:[5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ a b In-line citations, if provided, should follow either the Harvard references or the cite.php footnotes method, but not both in the same article. Science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement for Good articles. However, if images (including other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Comments[edit]

Starting review. SilkTork *YES! 00:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;

(b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and (c) it contains no original research.


3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

  • Comments
  1. The pull shot that hit him in the ribs is mentioned twice in the Lead.
I know. I try to have a bit about "style" and one about chronological events, that's why it ended up in there twice. Barnes' habit of standing point blank was quite notorious but I cut down the description in one place. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Early tour: "Barnes, Morris and Brown" - who are Morris and Brown?
Fixed. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Writing is a little too condensed at times - "Barnes thus opened with Morris, while reserve opener Bill Brown batted out of the position in the middle order. Barnes took the last two catches..." Some sense that he didn't take those catches while batting would be useful!
Fixed the catches. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "the first wicket to fall at 1/79." Footnote welcome here.
Notation noted. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "Barnes put on 111 with Bradman for the second wicket" - as the focus of this is Sid Barnes, it wouldn't hurt to remind readers who Bradman is in the first mention in the main body. And this would apply to every other first mention of a player in the main body.
Done for all. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "next match" is being used a lot.
  2. leg trap link please
done YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. As this article is about an individual's performance in a team game, I'd like to see a little more clarity in each section on what the individual did - some short summary would be useful. At present these are reports on the games, with Barnes' activities simply high-lighted. As such it appears that the games are the focus rather than the player. Barnes doesn't even get a mention in the first paragraph of the First Test. Something like: "Barnes batted solidly in the First Test, putting on xx runs overall. He also did a spell at bowling, his only bowling of the tour, and drew attention for interactions with the umpires and for his close fielding." Not exactly that, but something like that would be useful for each section. Also:
I disagree that it is simply a report on the match, as in the tour matches, Barnes performances is given and simply the basic overall result is given apart from events that Barnes directly enabled. Tweaked a few. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There is a fine balance between giving enough information to put Barnes performance in each Test in context, and failing 3 (a) by going into too much detail about each game. I think it would help if we would were given a brief overview of Barnes innings, before going into the finer details - "Barnes scored 62 in the first innings partnering Morris and Bradman before being caught off Jim Laker. Shortly after Barnes and Morris had opened Australia's account with just 15 minutes of play left, Barnes appealed against the light...." And:
  2. Trim material like "while Brown played out of position in the middle order." which have nothing to do with Barnes. In the Bradman article, as he was captain, comments about decisions of who played where are appropriate ad they would have been Bradman's decision, but in this article we don't need to be told who played where unless it impacts on Barnes performance. Ah! Brown is sometimes his opening partner.... I see. Some clarity is needed to inform the reader of the importance to Barnes of Brown playing out of order.
Explained this at the front that there are three players competing for two opening positions. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Again I have feelings of uncertainty over the sections. I take on board your previous comments that matches played outside the Tests would impact upon the Tests - though if that were the case, then the matches mentioned in Fourth Test would actually impact upon the Fifth Test and should actually appear in that section. Could the sections be about each Test and the preceding matches rather than the following matches? And to make it clear to the reader where to look, and what each section is about, perhaps the titles could be changed to indicate what they are about - so either: "Fourth Test and following matches" or "Fourth Test and preceding matches".
If I did that then the first section of a certain Test wouldn't actually be about that Test, which would be more of a problem in my opinion. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. See also. I think a navigation template for each player's article for the tour would be useful.
It's already there. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another great article. The above are observations as I read through, and not all would impact on the GA status. My only genuine concern is about the focus of the article not being enough on Sid Barnes. SilkTork *YES! 19:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still have reservations about the focus, and about the structuring of the sections, but not enough to either do something about it, or for it to impact about GA status. Passed as GA. SilkTork *YES! 18:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sid_Barnes_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948/GA1&oldid=1091482806"