Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948/archive1

Nominator(s): YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Lindwall as the Invincibles main bowler and he was known for his classical arm action and ability to swing the ball. He completely wrecked England in the Second and Fifth Tests, and Wisden said that "by whatever standard he is judged", Lindwall must "be placed permanently in the gallery of great fast bowlers". YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:21, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - dab link to Tony Pawson, no dead external links. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—2c is beautiful. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I must have picked something up from earlier reviews then :) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Your nominations are improving, I must say: nice work! Any nominations for featured topic in the offing? Support Tony (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I've just been labelled a hyphen fascist ... oh well. But here, you might consider not using the first hyphen: "equal-leading wicket-taker".
    • Ok but can you explain the rationale so I know how to apply it YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, there's already a hyphenated duo next to it, so we know "leading" isn't part of that next compound item. Is "equal leading" ambiguous? It's no big deal, though. Tony (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Do be careful with "as", a poorly engineered word in English: "Bradman used Lindwall sparingly, taking a match total of 3/45 from 25 overs as Surrey were defeated by an innings." Does it mean "because" or "while"? I wouldn't use "as" at all in such contexts. "Since", "because" where there's causality.
    • I don't believe I have done anything unconventional (at least not compared to the news eg "Matt Giteau scored all the points as Australia won 17–0" and so forth (coreelation I guess, but not causality) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
      • I still can't tell whether you mean "since" or "while". Did he take the the total when Surrey were defeated? If so, "when" would be unambiguous. Otherwise, I wonder whether he took it because they were defeated. Tony (talk) 12:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Ellipsis points: spaced on both sides. The MoS says it all: ""crumpled completely...in as depressing a batting performance as the tour knew".
  • Watch those repeated "then"s: "the Australian captain then apologised to Edrich.[48] Lindwall then bounced Washbrook ...". And it seems an awkward place for a para break; better after ref-tag 50? Tony (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Done the rest, and "that"s as well. As far as FT goes, it already passed the 33% criteria in December 2009 and passed the 50%+1 in time for the raised bar. But as far as improving goes, this was copyedited 16 months ago (before Meckiff) and has been in my FAC queue since then :( YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

• "The pair played a key role in subduing England's leading batsmen, Len Hutton and Denis Compton..." OK, Hutton fair enough (unfortunately!) but I'm not sure I'd count DSC as subdued in the series... Maybe rephrase a touch?

Yes not phrased well YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure about "scalps" for wickets. Might raise a few eyebrows to those unfamiliar with cricket!

And another take/took in the sentence rewroded YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Lindwall was not no-balled in the first match at Worcester, and so it remained for the rest of the tour." Does this mean he was not no-balled at all on the tour? It sounds a bit clunky.
• For the Notts match, is it worth making the link of Larwood, Notts and Bodyline (and even that Lindwall modelled his action on Larwood) to give context to Fingo's comment?

Done

• "searing yorker": Says who?
• First test: It says Harvey being sub gave Aus an advantage. Maybe clarify as the loss of Lindwall's bowling outweighed any fielding gain, given England's relative success in the 2nd innings.
• "who was playing across the line": Maybe add "of the ball".
• "Hutton and Washbrook took the score to 42—England's highest partnership of the series" Even England weren't that bad! And I don't think it was their best opening stand either. Without checking, I thought they put on 100 in each innings as Leeds?

Should have been to this date YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Does opinion of Hutton as best batsman need its own ref?
• "...the second highest by any Australian team in England.[10][39] Lindwall was not able to take advantage of this, as the tourists declared before he had scored." What was Lindwall taking advantage of?
• "believed the England selectors had errer..." Erred?

I'll look at the rest shortly, but looks good overall. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarified the rest YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Has the jargon been explained since the GAN review? Aaroncrick ^TALK 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I did do a wikilinking run YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

here did it on all the others as well YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Support by Aaroncrick:

• "Fingleton described the Morris’s feat as "one of the catches of the season".—Why not Morris'?
• Is capitulated perhaps too strong?

Aaroncrick ^TALK 05:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

coming. a typo YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 05:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Done YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)