Talk:Fifth Test, 1948 Ashes series/GA1

GA Review

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

This is a fairly long article, so I'll post my comments here as I go through:

"Going into the match, Bradman needed to score only four runs in his final innings to have a Test batting average of exactly 100." What about his first innings? How could he go into the match knowing how many he needed to score in his final innings?

He had made 6996 runs and was out 69 times. Thus if he made 4 and got out it would be 7000/70=100. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... the Australia pace attack, led by Lindwall, cut down England within the first day for just 52." This, from the lead, needs to be made more accessible. What does "pace attack" mean? "Cut down" seems like tabloid language, needs to be made more encyclopedic. Should also be "Australian", not Australia".

Fixed for grammar. Removed cut down. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Lindwall was the main destroyer with 6/20." What does 6/20 mean?

Added notes for the notation. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The opening stand ended at 117 when Barnes fell ..." What has Barnes' falling got to do with anything? Wasn't it his wicket that fell?

Your are correct, but it is normal usage to say that the player himself fell instead of the long winded way. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Malleus Fatuorum 02:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to explain these points to me, but to your readers. If you feel that my comments are unhelpful then I am quite happy to leave this review to another editor. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Carry on. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 05:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9 (UTC)

I'm still a bit concerned about the amount of unexplained jargon, particularly in the lead. For instance: "England reached 54/1 at stumps". I'm not even sure I know what that means myself.

"Jack Fingleton speculated that the Australians would have bowled if they had won the toss." Need to say who Jack Fingleton is, as in "Cricket commentator Jack Fingleton ..." or similar.

OK, that's it. If those two points are addressed I'll be happy to list this article as a GA, meanwhile I'm placing it on hold. I'm no cricket fan, but I did enjoy reading this article, well done. I think the amount of jargon might attract some criticism at FAC though.

--Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done this. Yes, jargon linking run is in order. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.