Talk:Jack Marsh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Jack Marsh is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 23, 2014.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
December 28, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
May 22, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on December 26, 2007.
Current status: Featured article

GA Review[edit]

Very good article on a neglected subject. The article is basically at GA standard now but I have some suggestions I would like you to consider before promoting.

  • "former first-class cricketer" - As Marsh is dead, is former redundant?
  • Fixed.
  • Indigenous descent - would "Australian aboriginal descent" be clearer to non-Australians?
  • Fixed.
  • "regarded as one of the outstanding talents of his era" - I know it is the lead but is this a little too peacocky On reflection, is discussed adequately in the article. Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • "he was no-balled for throwing" - a link to throwing (cricket) perhaps
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • "an in a later season" - not sure if this should be "and in a later season" or "an a later season"
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • "running stiff" - an explanation of running stiff - i.e. not trying to win and why it was an issue should be added
  • I don't actually know anything about running scandals. If oyu do could you help?
  • I know that running stiff means not trying to win, i.e. tanking. In professional running it is a perennial problem as it is usually done as part of betting plunges or to push out the odds for a later race. My uncle gave a good piece of advice once, "Never bet on anything with two legs"! I would suggest a link to Match fixing would do the job. Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Is the linked Sydney Cricket Club the same club that Marsh played for? The existing Sydney Cricket Club is a rebadged Balmain CC
  • Unlinked. It is something else.
  • Is a link to Test cricket appropriate at the first use of "Test player"
  • Fixed.
  • "Trumper was widely regarded as the finest batsman of his age" - by whom?
  • Well, erm everyone (in this case, "heaps" is enough since I said "widely", I have now added two more refs, but each of the refs quote multiple pundits...I guess to list 10 praises of Trumper would swamp the article)
  • Without doubt he was. The referencing is fine now and probably was sufficient before but it never hurts to attribute these statements where possible. Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
  • "the highest individual score compiled at Adelaide Oval in a Shield match" - "Shield needs explanation or naming and listing in full i.e. Sheffield Shield
  • Fixed.
  • "the public interest in it had started to wan" - Is "wan" the word you are looking for, or is it "wane"
  • Fixed.
  • "Two notable events in the first innings occurred in the innings. At one point Marsh lost his cool and deliberately threw three consecutive balls. Another was that his captain Syd Gregory kept Marsh bowling from the end adjudicated by Crockett, who was suspected of being biased towards his own state." - This reads a little choppily to me.
  • Much better
  • In the paragraph starting "Certain hypotheses were presented for Crockett's actions", who are the people making the conspiracy claims?
  • The author didn't really attribute them. He just noted their existence.
  • "As a result, Gregory's unwillingness to switch Marsh to the opposite end raised eyebrows" - raised whose eyebrows? perhaps this can be reworded.
  • "It was speculated that since Crockett was a lifelong employee" - Who did the speculating?
  • The author didn't really attribute them. He just noted their existence.
  • "Plum Warner's MCC team" - MCC should at least be linked, if not spelled out or perhaps the abbreviation shown at the earlier mention of Marylebone Cricket Club. There is the potential for confusion between Marylebone CC and Melbourne CC; both are mentioned earlier in the article.
  • Fixed.
  • "Barnes was the only Test bowler with over 120 Test wickets to have a bowling average under 20; he took 189 wickets at an average of just 16.43" I know the sentence provides some context to the comparison made earlier but it seem incongruous here. The link provided earlier should be sufficient.
  • Fixed. Moved back into the correct position immiedately after the first Bardsley comment.
  • Much better location, I will add a little tweak to the sentence, revert if you feel it unnecessary. Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you have done those that you feel are relevant and I will take another look. The GA is on hold for now. -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I will make the last few changes on your behalf and then promote. There also seems to be a small problem with the formatting of the refs that I will fix. Well done again. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination[edit]

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of December 28, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: pass
2. Factually accurate?: pass
3. Broad in coverage?: pass
4. Neutral point of view?: pass
5. Article stability? pass
6. Images?: pass

This is a comprehensive, well written article. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Mattinbgn\talk 05:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yulgilbar or Baryulgil?[edit]

"Yulgilbar" redirects to Baryulgil, New South Wales, and that article makes no mention of any alternative name for the town. Colonies Chris (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a parish according to Yulgilbar at Geographical Names Board of New South Wales at 29°17′00″S 152°34′00″E / 29.28333°S 152.56667°E / -29.28333; 152.56667. The parish appears to include Baryulgil. Parishes in Australia are not used except in property titles and Baryulgil, although very small would be the normal way to describe the locality. The two names presumably have a common Aboriginal origin. See also Baryulgil, which says it is "apparently a corruption of 'YULGILBAR' the name of Edwards Ogelvie's Run".--Grahame (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Citations required?[edit]

This article has some vague and sweeping assertions that need, in my opinion, some clarification. "Marsh's lack of opportunities has often been attributed to racial discrimination." "The most popular of these theories was that Marsh was scapegoated in a campaign against throwing and was a soft target because of his race."

As it's today's featured article, and as I am unsure whether Weasel, By whom?, or Citation required is the appropriate annotation, I have simply added this comment to Talk. 122.106.178.25 (talk) 01:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

A ridicolous article. If it is: "It is claimed that 40% of sexual assaults in Italy are carried out by immigrants", (or, ahah, what..? Like, 80% in Sweden?), or a similar politically sensitive matter is mentioned, every source is treated as weasel words, and we witness the perfection and tempestivity of the politically correct Wikipedia censure. Here we have a whole FEATURED article about a fucking Aborigen drunkard who supposedly didn't access higher leagues because he was not white. I think every real comment on the matter is superflous --151.47.205.251 (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an insane comment, this was a period of extreme racism in Australia. Of course he was severely discriminated against.--Grahame (talk) 00:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment, my intention was not to bring the comments into doubt, but, this being an encyclopaedia, improve the verifiability etc. For example, "The most popular..." - amongst whom?, how measured?, by what degree? - any citations available? 122.106.178.25 (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I still see no sources for your claims, Grahame, beside your own opinion. How can you just expect a random person says "That was a period of terrible racism in Australia", and that is treated as a reliable source of information? Really? --82.49.79.119 (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)