Talk:Jack Hobbs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sahara4u (talk · contribs) 06:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Link Australia to Australia cricket team. Same for others……

Linked Australia and South Africa. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may link “appendicitis, pneumonia, sea-sickness” many of our viewers will need this

I don't think sea-sickness is needed, actually. See WP:OVERLINK which suggests that everyday terms do not need linking. Did the other two. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Zia Khan 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First-class cricketer

A link to List of batsmen who have scored 100 centuries in first-class cricket

Not quite sure what you mean here. What should be linked? If you mean Hobbs or Hayward, this would be unnecessary. Hayward is linked to his own article, and nothing in this section mentions 100 first class centuries. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As yiu did with "Main article: Early life of Jack Hobbs" and "Main article: Later cricket career of Jack Hobbs". What say? Zia Khan 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you mean now. Such a link shouldn't go at the top like that; the only reason those two articles are linked is because they are the main articles of which the section following the link is a summary. Maybe worth adding to a "See also" section, but I don't think it is relevant enough to Hobbs to be worth including. Also, there is a template carrying that very information at the bottom of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Making his debut on 24 April 1905 against a team representing the "Gentlemen of England"….. I think this should be "Having made……….."

I think the current phrasing is better. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link Wisden, The Times 1st

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"only three men to pass 2,000 runs" A note to who were the others.

I have to disagree again; if we mention who scored more/had a better average than Hobbs each season, it will be far too much detail. Hobbs was frequently not the leading batsman in a particular season. I think in this case, this is enough to show that Hobbs was one of the best batsmen. Who the other two (Hayward and J Tyldesley, FWIW) were has little relevance to Hobbs. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Zia Khan 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First tour to Australia

"Eventually, England needed 282 to win.[58] Hobbs scored 28 but England went on to win the match by one wicket." The 1st sentence is very short and do you really mean that England won the match?

Yes, England won the match. Rephrased slightly, but I don't think that a short sentence is necessarily a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued success

"The home side also lost the third Test. Hobbs scored 12 and 30, the latter the highest score of the innings." Could you merge these sentences?

I think it is better as two sentences; joining them would require a bit of un-natural forcing. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“"As England had few effective pace bowlers on the tour, Hobbs opening the bowling in the first two Tests, as well as the batting.[82]" You mean “opened the bowling”?

Fixed. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"England won the match by nine wickets and the series finished 3–2." who won the series?

It states that South Africa won earlier in the paragraph. To say so again would be unnecessary repetition. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Later, he once more opened the bowling,[86] dismissing Reggie Schwarz, his only Test wicket.[82]" and in the next para "Bowling more frequently than in other seasons, Hobbs also took 28 wickets.[39]" can you clarify this? i.e FC wickets

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Success against Australia

Hobbs scored 126 not out, his first century against Australia, you may link not out

Actually, not out occurs earlier in the article than this. Linked it there now. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"....this time Hobbs and Rhodes added 147 for the first wicket and Hobbs scored 187." I think it should be"…and Hobbs went on to score 187." There may be other sentences in the article like this.

I don't think this would be an improvement. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Their partnership remained an overall Test record for 22 years and the highest for the first wicket until 1948.[102]" add note, who broke the record.

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was finally dismissed for 178.[104] Very short sentence… can you merge this?

I don't think that is a problem. Some short sentences are fine, as long as there aren't too many. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In addition, Hobbs ran out 15 batsmen and Warner praised his fielding at cover point.[108]" A link to run out

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years before the war

Link Sydney Barnes

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First World War

"In May 1915, Hobbs began........" Not keen starting a sentence with date, could you arrange this at the end of the sentence?

There is nothing wrong with beginning with a date in this way. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Air Force -> Royal Air Force (RAF)

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of cricket

"Four of his 11 first-class centuries………" Use either four or 11 format

Please see WP:NUMERAL: this is standard practice. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but comparative figures should be in the same format. What do you say? Zia Khan 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sir Berkley Moynihan, z prominent surgeon based in Leeds." ……..a prominent surgeon based in Leeds.

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Overall, he scored 2,087 runs at 37.95.[36]" …………….Overall, he scored 2,087 runs at 37.95. in the season.

I think this would be redundant. It is fairly obvious that this refers to the season which the last few sentences were about. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't thik so? Zia Khan 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, added "in the season". Sarastro1 (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership with Sutcliffe

"Hobbs went on to his seventh century against Australia….." -> …went on to score his seventh century……

I think that would be redundant, and again I prefer the current wording. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peak of popularity

Link West Indies and of course it should be “the West Indies”.

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Tests

"…….W. G. Grace's record aggregate of runs in a first-class career.[247]" -> A note rgarding Grace’s score

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Australian fielders gave him three cheers" -> What is three chairs? Explaination needed.

Er... It's three cheers, and the term is linked in the text. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I mean cheers. This was just minor one. Zia Khan 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of career

"Wisden never recognised the centuries and so record his total of centuries as 197.[253][254] Other authorities give 199 centuries.[255]" Could you merge the sentences

I don't think this is necessary. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“In 1932, although he missed ……….” Again a sentence starting with “In 1932”.

This is a perfectly acceptable to begin a sentence. Grammatically, it is not much different to saying "During August", "Last week", or "In the war". It is only a problem if a succession of sentences begin like this in a short time. Then it becomes WP:PROSELINE. But the instances mentioned here are quite far apart and I don't think it is a problem. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same for "1933, Hobbs scored 1,105………" and "In February 1935, he announced…."

See above. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link ESPNcricinfo

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation and legacy

"Hobbs was twice selected as Wisden's Cricketer of the Year…" When? Years needed.

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any link to "all-time World XI"?

None that are suitable and which refer to this team selection. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is he not inducted into the ICC Cricket Hall of Fame? If yes, then why not mentioned.

Done. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Family life

"Hobbs so disliked being separated from his……" -> Hobbs disliked

This would not make sense; the remainder of the sentence requires "so disliked...that". Sarastro1 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Zia Khan 19:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link St Matthew's, Cambridge

There is no article to link to. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reirement

May be "Retirement and death"

Went for "retirement and final years". Sarastro1 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In 1946, Hobbs became the" …… and "In 1953, Hobbs was knighted…." Same as above and "knighted" needs explaination.

See above for my response, and knighted is linked. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

“She died in March 1963. Hobbs' health began to fail shortly afterwards and he died on 21 December 1963.” Could you merge these sentences?

I don't think they lend themselves to merging, and I prefer the current construction. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

"In 1930, the Ashes Tests were….." As above

Again, see above. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zia Khan 06:05, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

A slight modification required in Final Tests' image.

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:22, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I mean Alt text of the image. Zia Khan 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The image already has alt text. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A slight modification to "A man standing wearing cricket whites"

Sorry to appear a bit dense here, but I still don't quite understand what you want. What do you think the alt text should be? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big issue, its just fine and thanks for replying so repidly. 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very good when it comes to review images, so I'll need additional comments from other reviewers. Zia Khan 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images have been reviewed by NapHit, no issues. Zia Khan 19:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and comments so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for bieng so quick. Great work with the article. Zia Khan 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final review

GA review (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria and WP:GACN)

Well written.
a (clear and concise prose which doesn't violate copyright laws, grammar and spelling are correct): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, and fiction:
Factually accurate and verifiable.
a (well referenced): b (citations to reliable sources): c (Wikipedia:No original research):
Broad in its coverage.
a (covers major aspects): b (well focused):
Neutral .
Fair representation, no bias:
Stable.
No edit wars nor disputed contents:
Illustrated appropriately by images.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Conclusion: A notable article with inclusion criteria, about a notable individual, just one step away from becoming a featured article. Zia Khan 19:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pass/Fail: