This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.
He was left arm bowler many say the greatest left arm spinner, O`Reily said the most talented he saw he claims the ball Smith bowled Hammond with was the best ball he saw. He was surpringly sucsessfull in first class games his strike rate of 42 is better than O`Reily and Grimmets.In the 1934 Ashes series Australia were down 2-0 but Bradmon and Mccabe with the bat and Smith and O`Reily with the ball Australia managed a 3-2 win of the series, the fact Smith missed the first two games helps one undersand how we won the series as we did not have his advantage in the first two tests, Smith took 19 wickets in three tests
Yup, that section deserved to be struck, not least for getting the year of the Ashes series wrong! Also, it wasn't merely the return of F-S but some appalling luck with the weather (and injuries) that lost MCC that series - at 2-0 up and with Australia about 180-7 in the first innings of the Third Test, the Ashes were all but on the boat home before rain intervened.Captain Pedant 12:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm about 95% confident that Fleetwood-Smith started out as a right-arm bowler and had to learn all over again as a left-armer, a very strange circumstance that ought to be documented.Captain Pedant 12:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I've referred to this as reference on Page 270 of The Wisden Book of Obituaries, quoted presumably from Wisden 1972. I've still to work out how to do one of those reference tags, so if anyone else knows how..... WillE 11:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
The story that he broke his arm is not true, but is reprinted in some biographies. Wisden is not a good source as it also shows his year of birth as 1910 and not 1908. Fleetwood-Smith propagated a number of falsehoods about himself: the broken arm story, his DOB and that of his real surname, which was just plain Smith. Phanto282 08:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you definitely know which sources are true and which are porky pies? It's tempting to ask for citations for all the references to Chuck in Williams' 2000 book - it is, after all written 28 years after Chuck died, and 70 after he came to fame. WillE (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
While I have nominated this article, it was substantially written by a editor who has now retired. I feel this article is worthy of listing as a good article and have therefore nominated it. I have access to most of the sources used and a familiarity with the topic and as such should be able to address most concerns likely to be raised. -- Mattinbgn\talk 03:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Overall, the article's not too bad. Seems like a person deserving of a GA. However, the article needs more work then I thought after a first scan-through. Here's what's needed:
The language of the first paragraph feels like it imposes opinions on the reader, and seems like a POV issue. (example: the word "gifted" on top of the contemporary note isn't necessary)
cricinfo requires a subscription, so make a note of that in the refs somewhere.
It feels like there are some sentences lacking citations that need them, yet many blend in to later ones that do, so upon re-review I'll look through those more closely.
"In addition to the affectation of his hyphenated surname, Fleetwood-Smith usually listed his year of birth as 1910 (thus reducing his age by two years) and propagated a story among journalists that he became a left-arm bowler when he broke his right arm during his youth." Citation needed
The last paragraph is uncited. With it being about his arrest and the aftermath, that's information that definitely needs to be.
Basically, my main issue with the article is similar to what's in the lead. A lot of modifiers like "outstanding" and "meteoric" are being thrown around. If they're stemming from a citation where a newspaper described their performance as such, that's one thing, but if they're just being used to enhance the article, that's troubling to me. I'll put it on hold and give you a week, though no guarantees on what I'll do upon completion (most likely a re-review, whether by me or someone else). Wizardman 04:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
After thinking it over, I'm going to fail the article. The rewriting of the prose will likely take some time to make it good, so I find it best if it's just re-nommed after this stuff is fixed. Wizardman 16:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)